The works of Robert G. Ingersoll

UBRARY

UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA
SAN DIC«0

LIBRARY

UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA
SAN D!E®0

/KL.

v- 7

&-/S99

JE>rcSDm CEOttion

THE WORKS

OF

Robert G. Ingersoll

"EVERY BRAIN IS A FIELD WHERE NATURE SOWS
THE SEEDS OF THOUGHT, AND THE CROP DEPENDS UPON
THE SOIL."

IN TWELVE VOLUMES
VOLUME VII.

DISCUSSIONS

NEW YORK

THE DRESDEN PUBLISHING CO.,
C. P. FARRELL

MCMII

COPYRIGHT, 1900

BY
C. P. FARRELL

COPYRIGHT, 1901

BY
THE DRESDEN PUBLISHING CO.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME VII.

MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

Answer to San Francisco Clergymen — Definition of Liberty, Physi
cal and Mental — The Right to Compel Belief — Woman the Equal of
Man — The Ghosts — Immortality — Slavery — Witchcraft — Aristocracy
of the Air — Unfairness of Clerical Critics — Force and Matter — Doc
trine of Negation — Confident Deaths of Murderers — Childhood
Scenes returned to by the Dying — Death-bed of Voltaire — Thomas
Paine — The First Sectarians Were Heretics — Reply to Rev. Mr.
Guard — Slaughter of the Canaanites — Reply to Rev. Samuel Robin
son—Protestant Persecutions — Toleration — Infidelity and Progress —
The Occident — Calvinism— Religious Editors — Reply to the Rev. Mr.
Ijams— Does the Bible teach Man to Enslave his Brothers ? — Reply to
California Christian Advocate — Self-Government of French People at
and Since the Revolution — On the Site of the Bastile — French Peas
ant's Cheers for Jesus Christ — Was the World created in Six Days —
Geology— What is the Astronomy of the Bible ? — The Earth the Centre
of the Universe — Joshua's Miracle — Change of Motion into Heat —
Geography and Astronomy of Cosmas — Does the Bible teach the Ex
istence of that Impossible Crime called Witchcraft? — Saul and the
Woman of Endor — Familiar Spirits — Demonology of the New Testa
ment — Temptation of Jesus — Possession by Devils — Gadarene Swine
Story— Test of Belief— Bible Idea of the Rights of Children— Punish
ment of the Rebellious Son — Jephthah's Vow and Sacrifice — Persecu
tion of Job— The Gallantry of God— Bible Idea of the Rights of
Women — Paul's Instructions to Wives — Permission given to Steal
Wives — Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy and Concubinage? — Does
the Bible Uphold and Justify Political Tyranny? — Powers that be Or
dained of God — Religious Liberty of God — Sun-Worship punishable
with Death — Unbelievers to be damned — Does the Bible describe a
God of Mercy ? — Massacre Commanded — Eternal Punishment Taught
in the New Testament — The Plan of Salvation — Fall and Atonement
Moral Bankruptcy — Other Religions— Parsee Sect — Brahmins — Con
fucians — Heretics and Orthodox, ..... 5-107

MY CHICAGO BIBLE CLASS.

(1879.)

Rev. Robert Collyer — Inspiration of the Scriptures — Rev. Dr.
Thomas— Formation of the Old Testament — Rev. Dr. Kohler— Rev.
Mr. Herford— Prof. Swing — Rev. Dr. Ryder, , . 111-122

(iii) VOL. vii,

ly CONTENTS.

TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY.

(1882.)

Rev. David Walk— Character of Jesus— Two or Three Christs De
scribed in the Gospels— Christ's Change of Opinions — Gospels Later
than the Epistles— Divine Parentage of Christ a Late Belief— The
Man Christ probably a Historical Character— Jesus Belittled by his
Worshipers — He never Claimed to be Divine -Christ's Omissions —
Difference between Christian and other Modern Civilizations— Civili
zation not Promoted by Religion— Inventors — French and American
Civilization : How Produced — Intemperance and Slavery in Christian
Nations — Advance due to Inventions and Discoveries — Missionaries
—Christian Nations Preserved by Bayonet and Ball— Dr. T. B. Taylor
—Origin of Life on this Planet— Sir William Thomson— Origin of
Things Undiscoverable — Existence after Death — Spiritualists — If the
Dead Return — Our Calendar — Christ and Christmas The Existence
of Pain — Plato's Theory of Evil — Will God do Better in Another
World than he does in this? — Consolation— Life Not a Probationary
Stage — Rev. D.O'Donaghue— The Case of Archibald Armstrong and
Jonathan Newgate— Inequalities of Life — Can Criminals live a Con
tented Life ?— Justice of the Orthodox God Illustrated, . 125-167

THE BROOKLYN DIVINES.

(1883.

Are the Books of Atheistic or Infidel Writers Extensively Read ?
— Increase in the Number of Infidels — Spread of Scientific Literature
—Rev. Dr. Eddy— Rev. Dr. Hawkins— Rev. Dr. Haynes— Rev. Mr.
Pullman— Rev. Mr. Foote— Rev. Mr. Wells— Rev. Dr. Van Dyke-
Rev. Carpenter — Rev. Mr. Reed — Rev. Dr. McClelland — Ministers
Opposed to Discussion— Whipping Children — Worldliness as a Foe
of the Church — The Drama — Human Love — Fires, Cyclones, and
Other Afflictions as Promoters of Spirituality — Class Distinctions —
Rich and Poor — Aristocracies -The Right to Choose One's Associ
ates—Churches Social Affairs — Progress of the Roman Catholic
Church — Substitutes for the Churches — Henry Ward Beecher — How
far Education is Favored by the Sects— Rivals of the Pulpit —
Christianity Now and One Hundred Years Ago— French Revolution
produced by the Priests — Why the Revolution was a Failure — Infi
delity of One Hundred Years Ago — Ministers not more Intellectual
than a Century Ago— Great Preachers of the Past— New Readings of
Old Texts — Clerical Answerers of Infidelity — Rev. Dr. Baker— Father
Fransiola — Faith and Reason— Democracy of Kindness — Moral In
struction — Morality Born of Human Needs— The Conditions of Happi
ness— The Chief End of Man, ...... 169-215

THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION.

Discussion between Col. Robert G. Ingersoll, Hon. Frederic R.
Coudert, and ex-Gov. Stewart L. Woodford before the Nineteenth
Century Club of New York— Propositions— Toleration not a Dis-
YOL.TII.

CONTENTS. V

claimer but a Waiver of the Right to Persecute — Remarks of Court-
landt Palmer — No Responsibility for Thought— Intellectual Hospitality
— Right of Free Speech — Origin of the term " Toleration " — Slander
and False Witness — Nobody can Control his own Mind : Anecdote —
Remarks of Mr. Coudert — Voltaire, Rousseau, Hugo, and Ingersoll
— General Woodford's Speech — Reply by Colonel Ingersoll — A
Catholic Compelled to Pay a Compliment to Voltaire — Responsibility
for Thoughts — The Mexican Unbeliever and his Reception in the
Other Country, 217-260

A CHRISTMAS SERMON.

(1891.)

Christianity's Message of Grief— Christmas a Pagan Festival — Repl)
to Dr. Buckley — Charges by the Editor of the Christian Advocate-^
The Tidings of Christianity — In what the Message of Grief Consists-
Fear and Flame — An Everlasting Siberia — Dr. Buckley's Proposal to
Boycott the Telegram — Reply to Rev. J. M. King and Rev. Thomas
Dixon, Jr. Can a Day be Blasphemed ? — Hurting Christian feelings
— "For Revenue only"— What is Blasphemy ? — Balaam's Ass wiser
than the Prophet — The Universalists — Can God do Nothing for this
World? — The Universe a Blunder if Christianity is true — The Duty of
a Newspaper— Facts Not Sectarian — The Rev. Mr. Peters — What In
fidelity Has Done — Public School System not Christian — Orthodox
Universities — Bruno on Oxford — As to Public Morals — No Rewards
or Punishments in the Universe — The Atonement Immoral — As to
Sciences and Art — Bruno, Humboldt, Darwin — Scientific Writers
Opposed by the Church — As to the Liberation of Slaves — As to the
Reclamation of Inebriates — Rum and Religion — The Humanity of
Infidelity — What Infidelity says to the Dying — The Battle Continued
— Morality not Assailed by an Attack on Christianity — The Inquisition
and Religious Persecution — Human Nature Derided by Christianity
— Dr. DaCosta — "Human Brotherhood " as exemplified by the His
tory of the Church — The Church and Science, Art and Learning —
— Astronomy's Revenge — Galileo and Kepler — Mrs. Browning :
Science Thrust into the Brain of Europe — Our Numerals — Christianity
and Literature— Institution* of Learning— Stephen Girard— Tames
Lick — Our Chronology— Hhrtorians— Natural Philosophy — Philology
— Metaphysical Research — latelligence, Hindoo, Egyptian— Inven
tions — John Ericsson — Emancipators — Rev. Mr. Ballou— The Right
of God to Punish— Rev. Dr. Hillier — Rev. Mr. Haldeman— George A.
Locey — The " Great Physican " — Rev. Mr. Talmage— Rev. J.Benson
Hamilton — How Voltaire Died— The Death-bed of Thomas Paine—
Rev. Mr. Holloway— Original Sin— Rev. Dr. Tyler — The Good Samar
itan a Heathen — Hospitals and Asylums — Christian Treatment of the
Insane— Rev. Dr. Buckley — The North American Review Discussion
— Judge Black, Dr. Field, Mr.Gladstone — Circulation of Obscene
Literature — Eulogy of Whiskey — Eulogy of Tobacco — Human Stu
pidity that Defies the Gods — Rev. Charles Deems— Jesus a Believer
in a Personal Devil — The Man Christ, .... 263-355

VOL. vii.

vi CONTENTS.

SUICIDE OF JUDGE NORMILE.

(1892.)

Reply to the Western Watchman— Henry D'Arcy— Peter's Prevari
cation — Some Excellant Pagans - Heartlessness of a Catholic— Wishes
do not Affect the Judgment — Devout Robbers — Penitent Murderers —
Reverential Drunkards— Luther's Distich— Judge Normile— Self-
destruction, 359-371

IS SUICIDE A SIN ?

(1894.)

Col. Ingersoll's First Letter in The New York World— Under what
Circumstances a Man has the Right to take his Own Life — Medicine
and the Decrees of God— Case of the Betrayed Girl— Suicides not
Cowards— Suicide under Roman Law— Many Suicides Insane — Insan
ity Caused by Religion— The Law against Suicide Cruel and Idiotic-
Natural and Sufficient Cause for Self-destruction—Christ's Death a
Suicide — Col. Ingersoll's Reply to his Critics— Is Suffering the Work
of God?— It is not Man's Duty to Endure Hopeless Suffering — When
Suicide is Justifiable— The Inquisition— Alleged Cowardice ofSuicides
— Propositions Demonstrated— Suicide the Foundation of the Christian
Religion — Redemption and Atonement — The Clergy on Infidelity
and Suicide— Morality and Unbelief — Better injure yourself than
Another — Misquotation by Opponents — Cheerful View the Best — The
Wonder is that Men endure — Suicide a Sin (Interview in The New
York Journal)— Causes of Suicide— Col. Ingersoll Does Not Advise
Suicide— Suicides with Tracts or Bibles in their Pockets— Suicide a
Sin (Interview in The New York Herald)— Comments on Rev. Merle
St. Croix Wright's Sermon— Suicide and Sanity (Interview in The
York World) — As to the Cowardice of Suicide — Germany and the
Prevalence of Suicide— Killing of Idiots and Defective Infants — Vir
tue, Morality, and Religion, 375-423

IS AVARICE TRIUMPHANT?

(1891.)

Reply to General Rush Hawkins' Article, " Brutality and Avarice
Triumphant" — Croakers and Prophets of Evil — Medical Treatment
for Believers in Universal Evil— Alleged Fraud in Army Contracts —
Congressional Extravagance — Railroad "Wreckers" — How Stock
holders in Some Roads Lost Their Money — The Star-Route Trials —
Timber and Public Lands — Watering Stock — The Formation of Trusts
— Unsafe Hotels : European Game and Singing Birds — Seal Fish
eries — Cruelty to Animals— Our Indians — Sensible and Manly Patriot
ism —Days of Brutality — Defence of Slavery by the Websters, Bentons,
and Clays— Thirty Years' Accomplishment— Ennobling Influence of
War for the Right— The Lady and the Brakeman — American Esteem
of Honesty in Business — Republics do not Tend to Official Corruption
— This the Best Country in the World, .... 425-447

VOL. vn.

CONTENTS. Vil

A REPLY TO THE CINCINNATI GAZETTE AND

CATHOLIC TELEGRAPH.

(1878.)

Defence of the Lecture on Moses — How Biblical Miracles are
sought to be Proved— Some Non Sequiturs— A Grammatical Criticism
— Christianity Destructive of Manners — Cuvier and Agassiz on Mosaic
Cosmogony— Clerical Advance vgents — Christian Threats and Warn
ings — Catholicism the Upas Tree — Hebrew Scholarship as a Qualifi
cation for Deciding Probab ities — Contradictions and Mistranslations
of the Bible— Number of Errors in the Scriptures— The Sunday
Question 451-462

AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE COMEGYS.

(1881.)

Charged with Blasphemy in the State of Delaware — Can a Condi-
tionless Deity be Injured ? — Injustice the only Blasphemy — The Lec
ture in Delaware — Laws of that State — All Sects in turn Charged with
Blasphemy — Heresy Consists in making God Better than he is Thought
to Be — A Fatal Biblical Passage — Judge Comegys — Wilmington
Preachers — States with Laws against Blasphemy — No Danger of In
fidel Mobs — No Attack on the State of Delaware Contemplated —
Comegys a Resurrection — Grand Jury's Refusal to Indict — Advice
about the Cutting out of Heretics' Tongues — Objections to the
Whipping-post — Mr. Bergh's Bill— One Remedy for Wife-beating—

465-490

A REPLY TO REV. DRS. THOMAS AND LORIMER.

(1888.)

Solemnity — Charged with Being Insincere — Irreverence — Old Test
ament Better than the New—" Why Hurt our Feelings?" — Involun
tary Action of the Brain — Source of our Conceptions of Space — Good
and Bad — Right and Wrong — The Minister, the Horse and the Lord's
Prayer — Men Responsible for their Actions — The " Gradual " Theory
Not Applicable to the Omniscient — Prayer Powerless to Alter Re
sults — Religious Persecution — Orthodox Ministers Made Ashamed
of their Creed — Purgatory — Infidelity and Baptism Contrasted —
Modern Conception of the Universe — The Golden Bridge of Life —
"The Only Salutation" — The Test for Admission to Heaven —
"Scurrility." 493-5*7

A REPLY TO REV. JOHN HALL AND WARNER VAN NORDEN.

(189S.)

Dr. Hall has no Time to Discuss the subject of Starving Workers —
Cloakmakers' Strike— Warner Van Norden of the Church Extension
Society — The Uncharitableness of Organized Charity — Defence of the
Cloakmakers — Life of the Underpaid — On the Assertion that Assist
ance encourages Idleness and Crime — The Man without Pity an In
tellectual Beast — Tendency of Prosperity to Breed Selfishness -
Thousands Idle without Fault— Egotism of Riches — Van Norden's

Idea of Happiness — The Worthy Poor 521-531

VOL. vii

Vlll CONTENTS.

A REPLY TO THE REV. Dr. PLUMB.

(1898.)

Interview in a Boston Paper — Why should a Minister call this a
" Poor" World? — Would an Infinite God make People who Need a
Redeemer? — Gospel Gossip — Christ's Sayings Repetitions — The Phil
osophy of Confucius — Rev. Mr. Mills — The Charge of " Robbery " —
The Divine Plan ... 535*545

A REPLY TO THE NEW YORK CLERGY ON SUPERSTITION.

(1898.)

Interview in the New York Journal— Rev. Roberts. MacArthur — A
Personal Devil — Devils who held Conversations with Christ not simply
personifications of Evil — The Temptation — The "Man of Straw" —
Christ's Mission authenticated by the Casting Out of Devils — Spain —
God Responsible for the Actions of Man— Rev. Dr. J. Lewis Parks —
Rev. Dr. E. F. Moldehnke-^Patience amidst the Misfortunes of
Others — Yellow Fever as a Divine Agent — The Doctrine that All is
for the Best — Rev. Mr. Hamlin — Why Did God Create a Successful
Rival ?— A Compliment by the Rev. Mr. Belcher— Rev. W. C. Bu
chanan — No Argument Old until it is Answered — Why should God
Create sentient Beings to be Damned ? — Rev. J. W. Campbell — Rev.
Henry Frank— Rev. E. C. J. Kraelingon Christ and the Devil — Would
he make a World like This ? ... 549-572

VOL. TII.

MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.*
i.

AGAINST the aspersions of the pulpit and the
religious press, I offer in evidence this mag
nificent audience. Although I represent but a small
part of the holy cause of intellectual liberty, even that
part shall not be defiled or smirched by a single
personality. Whatever I say, I shall say because I
believe it will tend to make this world grander, man
nearer just, the father kinder, the mother more lov
ing, the children more affectionate, and because I be
lieve it will make an additional flower bloom in the
pathway of every one who hears me.

In the first place, what have I said ? What has
been my offence ? What have I done ? I am spoken
of by the clergy as though I were a wolf that in the
absence of the good shepherd had fattened upon his
innocent flock. What have I said ?

I delivered a lecture entitled, "The Liberty of
Man, Woman and Child." In that lecture I said that

•This lecture was delivered by Col. Ingersoll in San Francisco Cal., June 27, 1877.
It was a reply to various clergymen of that city, who had made violent attacks
upon him after the delivery of his lectures, ' ' The Liberty of Man, Woman and

Child," and "The Ghosts." ....

(ot

6 MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

man was entitled to physical and intellectual liberty.
I defined physical liberty to be the right to do right ;
the right to do anything that did not interfere with
the real happiness of others. I defined intellectual
liberty to be the right to think right, and the right
to think wrong — provided you did your best to think
right.

This must be so, because thought is only an in
strumentality by which we seek to ascertain the
truth. Every man has the right to think, whether
his thought is in reality right or wrong ; and he can
not be accountable to any being for thinking wrong.
There is upon man, so far as thought is concerned,
the obligation to think the best he can, and to hon
estly express his best thought. Whenever he finds
what is right, or what he honestly believes to be the
right, he is less than a man if he fears to express his
conviction before an assembled world.

The right to do right is my definition of physical
liberty. " The right of one human being ceases
where the right of another commences." My defini
tion of intellectual liberty is, the right to think,
whether you think right or wrong, provided you do
your best to think right.

I believe in Liberty, Fraternity and Equality — the
Blessed Trinity of Humanity.

MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 7

I believe in Observation, Reason and Experience
— the Blessed Trinity of Science.

I believe in Man, Woman and Child — the Blessed
Trinity of Life and Joy.

I have said, and still say, that you have no right to
endeavor by force to compel another to think your
way — that man has no right to compel his fellow-
man to adopt his creed, by torture or social ostracism.
I have said, and still say, that even an infinite
God has and can have no right to compel by force
or threats even the meanest of mankind to accept a
dogma abhorrent to his mind. As a matter of fact such
a power is incapable of being exercised. You may
compel a man to say that he has changed his mind.
You may force him to say that he agrees with
you. In this way, however, you make hypocrites,
not converts. Is it possible that a god wishes the
worship of a slave ? Does a god desire the homage
of a coward ? Does he really long for the adoration
of a hypocrite ? Is it possible that he requires the
worship of one who dare not think ? If I were a god
it seems to me that I had rather have the esteem and
love of one grand, brave man, with plenty of heart
and plenty of brain, than the blind worship, the ig
norant adoration, the trembling homage of a universe
of men afraid to reason. And yet I am warned by

8 MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

the orthodox guardians of this great city not to
think. I am told that I am in danger of hell ; that
for me to express my honest convictions is to excite
the wrath of God. They inform me that unless I
believe in a certain way, meaning their way, I am
in danger of everlasting fire.

There was a time when these threats whitened the
faces of men with fear. That time has substantially
passed away. For a hundred years hell has been
gradually growing cool, the flames have been slowly
dying out, the brimstone is nearly exhausted, the
fires have been burning lower and lower, and the
climate gradually changing. To such an extent has
the change already been effected that if I were going
there to-night I would take an overcoat and a box
of matches.

They say that the eternal future of man depends
upon his belief. I deny it. A conclusion honestly
arrived at by the brain cannot possibly be a crime ;
and the man who says it is, does not think so. The
god who punishes it as a crime is simply an infamous
tyrant. As for me, I would a thousand times rather
go to perdition and suffer its torments with the
brave, grand thinkers of the world, than go to
heaven and keep the company of a god who would
damn his children for an honest belief.

MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 9

The next thing I have said is, that woman is the
equal of man ; that she has every right that man
has, and one more — the right to be protected,
because she is the weaker. I have said that mar
riage should be an absolutely perfect partnership of
body and soul ; that a man should treat his wife like
a splendid flower, and that she should fill his life
with perfume and with joy. I have said that a
husband had no right to be morose ; that he had no
right to assassinate the sunshine and murder the
joy of life.

I have said that when he went home he should go
like a ray of light, and fill his house so full of joy that
it would burst out of the doors and windows and
illumine even the darkness of night. I said that
marriage was the holiest, highest, the most sacred
institution among men ; that it took millions of
years for woman to advance from the condition of
absolute servitude, from the absolute slavery where
the Bible found her and left her, up to the position
she occupies at present. I have pleaded for the
rights of woman, for the rights of wives, and what
is more, for the rights of little children. I have
said that they could be governed by affection, by
love, and that my heart went out to all the children
of poverty and of crime ; to the children that live in

IO MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

the narrow streets and in the sub-cellars ; to the
children that run and hide when they hear the foot
steps of a brutal father, the children that grow pale
when they hear their names pronounced even by a
mother ; to all the little children, the flotsam and
jetsam upon the wide, rude sea of life. I have said
that my heart goes out to them one and all ; I have
asked fathers and mothers to cease beating their
own flesh and blood. I have said to them, When
your child does wrong, put your arms around him ;
let him feel your heart beat against his. It is easier
to control your child with a kiss than with a club.

For expressing these sentiments, I have been
denounced by the religious press and by ministers
in their pulpits as a demon, as an enemy of order,
as a fiend, as an infamous man. Of this, however,
I make no complaint. A few years ago they would
have burned me at the stake and I should have been
compelled to look upon their hypocritical faces
through flame and smoke. They cannot do it now
or they would. One hundred years ago I would
have been burned, simply for pleading for the rights
of men. Fifty years ago I would have been im
prisoned. Fifty years ago my wife and my children
would have been torn from my arms in the name of
the most merciful God. Twenty-five years ago I

MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED. II

could not have made a living in the United States
at the practice of law ; but I can now. I would not
then have been allowed to express my thought ;
but I can now, and I will. And when I think about
the liberty I now enjoy, the whole horizon is illumin
ated with glory and the air is rilled with wings.

I then delivered another lecture entitled " Ghosts,"
in which I sought to show that man had been con
trolled by phantoms of his own imagination ; in
which I sought to show these imps of darkness,
these devils, had all been produced by supersti
tion ; in which I endeavored to prove that man had
groveled in the dust before monsters of his own
creation ; in which I endeavored to demonstrate
that the many had delved in the soil that the few
might live in idleness, that the many had lived in
caves and dens that the few might dwell in palaces
of gold ; in which I endeavored to show that man
had received nothing from these ghosts except
hatred, except ignorance, except unhappiness, and
that in the name of phantoms man had covered the
face of the world with tears. And for this, I have
been assailed, in the name, I presume, of universal
forgiveness. So far as any argument I have pro
duced is concerned, it cannot in any way make the
slightest difference whether I am a good or a bad

12 MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

man. It cannot in any way make the slightest
difference whether my personal character is good or
bad. That is not the question, though, so far as I
am concerned, I am willing to stake the whole
question upon that issue. That is not, however,
the thing to be discussed, nor the thing to be de
cided. The question is, whether what I said is true.

I did say that from ghosts we had obtained certain
things — among other things a book known as the
Bible. From the ghosts we received that book ;
and the believers in ghosts pretend that upon that
book rests the doctrine of the immortality of the
human soul. This I deny.

Whether or not the soul is immortal is a fact in
nature and cannot be changed by any book what
ever. If I am immortal, I am. If I am not, no
book can render me so. It is no mure wonderful
that I should live again than that I do live.

The doctrine of immortality is not based upon any
book. The foundation of that idea is not a creed.
The idea of immortality, which, like a sea, has ebbed
and flowed in the human heart, beating with its
countless waves of hope and fear against the shores
and rocks of fate and time, was not born of any
book, was not born of a creed. It is not the child
of any religion. It was born of human affection ;

MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 13

and it will continue to ebb and flow beneath the
mists and clouds of doubt and darkness as long as
love kisses the lips of death. It is the eternal bow
— Hope shining upon the tears of Grief.

I did say that these ghosts taught that human
slavery was right. If there is a crime beneath the
shining stars it is the crime of enslaving a human
being. Slavery enslaves not only the slave, but the
master as well. When you put a chain upon the
limbs of another, you put a fetter also upon your
own brain. I had rather be a slave than a slave
holder. The slave can at least be just — the slave
holder cannot. I had rather be robbed than be a
robber. I had rather be stolen from than to be a
thief. I have said, and I do say, that the Bible
upheld, sustained and sanctioned the institution of
human slavery ; and before I get through I will
prove it.

I said that to the same book we are indebted, to a
great degree, for the doctrine of witchcraft. Rely
ing upon its supposed sacred texts, people were
hanged and their bodies burned for getting up
storms at sea with the intent of drowning royal
vermin. Every possible offence was punished under
the name of witchcraft, from souring beer to high
treason.

14 MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

I also said, and I still say, that the book we ob
tained from the ghosts, for the guidance of man,
upheld the infamy of infamies, called polygamy ;
and I will also prove that. And the same book
teaches, not political liberty, but political tyranny.

I also said that the author of the book given us
by the ghosts knew nothing about astronomy, still
less about geology, still less, if possible, about
medicine, and still less about legislation.

This is what I have said concerning the aristocracy
of the air. I am well aware that having said it I
ought to be able to prove the truth of my words.
I have said these things. No one ever said them
in better nature than I have. I have not the
slightest malice — a victor never felt malice. As
soon as I had said these things, various gentlemen
felt called upon to answer me. I want to say that
if there is anything I like in the world it is fairness.
And one reason I like it so well is that I have had
so little of it. I can say, if I wish, extremely mean
and hateful things. I have read a great many
religious papers and discussions and think that I
now know all the infamous words in our language.
I know how to account for every noble action by a
mean and wretched motive, and that, in my judg
ment, embraces nearly the entire science of modern

MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 15

theology. The moment I delivered a lecture upon
" The Liberty of Man, Woman and Child," I was
charged with having said that there is nothing back
of nature, and that nature with its infinite arms
embraces everything ; and thereupon I was informed
that I believed in nothing but matter and force, that
I believed only in earth, that I did not believe in
spirit. If by spirit you mean that which thinks,
then I am a believer in spirit. If you mean by
spirit the something that says " I," the something
that reasons, hopes, loves and aspires, then I am a
believer in spirit. Whatever spirit there is in the
universe must be a natural thing, and not super
imposed upon nature. All that I can say is, that
whatever is, is natural. And there is as much
goodness, in my judgment, as much spirit in this
world as in any other ; and you are just as near the
heart of the universe here as you can be anywhere.
One of your clergymen says in answer, as he sup
poses, to me, that there is matter and force and
spirit. Well, can matter exist without force ?
What would keep it together ? What would keep
the finest possible conceivable atom together unless
there was force ? Can you imagine such a thing as
matter without force ? Can you conceive of force
without matter ? Can you conceive of force floating

1 6 MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

about attached to nothing ? Can you possibly con
ceive of this ? No human being can conceive of
force without matter. " You cannot conceive of
force being harnessed or hitched to matter as you
would hitch horses to a carriage." You cannot.
Now, what is spirit ? They say spirit is the first
thing that was. It seems to me, however, as though
spirit was the blossom, the fruit of all, not the com
mencement. They say it was first. Very well.
Spirit without force, a spirit without any matter —
what would that spirit do ? No force, no matter ! —
a spirit living in an infinite vacuum. What would
such a spirit turn its particular attention to ? This
spirit, according to these theologians, created the
world, the universe ; and if it did, there must have
been a time when it commenced to create ; and
back of that there must have been an eternity spent
in absolute idleness. Now, is it possible that a
spirit existed during an eternity without any force
and without any matter? Is it possible that force
could exist without matter or spirit ? Is it possible
that matter could exist alone, if by matter you mean
something without force ? The only answer I can
give to all these questions is, I do not know. For
my part, I do not know what spirit is, if there is any.
I do not know what matter is, neither am I ac-

MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 1 7

quainted with the elements of force. If you mean
by matter that which I can touch, that which occu
pies space, then I believe in matter. If you mean
by force anything that can overcome weight, that
can overcome what we call gravity or inertia ; if you
mean by force that which moves the molecules of
matter, or the movement itself, then I believe in
force. If you mean by spirit that which thinks and
loves, then I believe in spirit. There is, however,
no propriety in wasting any time about the science
of metaphysics. I will give you my definition of
metaphysics : Two fools get together ; each admits
what neither can prove, and thereupon both of them
say, " hence we infer." That is all there is of meta
physics.

These gentlemen, however, say to me that all my
doctrine about the treatment of wives and children,
all my ideas of the rights of man, all these are wrong,
because I am not exactly correct as to my notion 01
spirit. They say that spirit existed first, at least an
eternity before there was any force or any matten
Exactly how spirit could act without force we do not
understand. That we must take upon credit. How
spirit could create matter without force is a serious
question, and we are too reverent to press such an
inquiry. We are bound to be satisfied, however, that

1 8 MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

spirit is entirely independent offeree and matter, and
any man who denies this must be " a malevolent
and infamous wretch."

Another reverend gentleman proceeds to denounce
all I have said as the doctrine of negation. And we
are informed by him — speaking I presume from ex
perience — that negation is a poor thing to die by.
He tells us that the last hours are the grand testing
hours. They are the hours when atheists disown
their principles and infidels bewail their folly — " that
Voltaire and Thomas Paine wrote sharply against
Christianity, but their death-bed scenes are too har
rowing for recital " — He also states that " another
French infidel philosopher tried in vain to fortify
Voltaire, but that a stronger man than Voltaire had
taken possession of him, and he cried ' Retire ! it is
you that have brought me to my present state — Be
gone ! what a rich glory you have brought me.' "
This, my friends, is the same old, old falsehood that
has been repeated again and again by the lips of
hatred and hypocrisy. There is not in one of these
stories a solitary word of truth ; and every intelligent
man knows all these death-bed accounts to be entirely
and utterly false. They are taken, however, by the
mass of the church as evidence that all opposition to
Christianity, so-called, fills the bed of the dying in-

MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 19

fidel and scoffer with serpents and scorpions. So far
as my experience goes, the bad die in many instances
as placidly as the good. I have sometimes thought
that a hardened wretch, upon whose memory is en
graved the record of nearly every possible crime, dies
without a shudder, without a tremor, while some
grand, good man, remembering during his last mo
ments an unkind word spoken to a stranger, it
may be in the heat of anger, dies with remorseful
words upon his lips. Nearly every murderer who is
hanged,dies with an immensity of nerve, but I never
thought it proved that he had lived a good and useful
life. Neither have I imagined that it sanctified the
crime for which he suffered death. The fact is, that
when man approaches natural death, his powers, his
intellectual faculties fail and grow dim. He becomes a
child. He has less and less sense. And just in pro
portion as he loses his reasoning powers, he goes back
to the superstitions of his childhood. The scenes of
youth cluster about him and he is again in the lap of his
mother. Of this very fact, there is not a more beauti
ful description than that given by Shakespeare when
he takes that old mass of wit and filth, Jack Falstaff,
in his arms, and Mrs Quickly says: " A' made a
finer end, and went away, an it had been my christom
child ; a' parted ev'n just between twelve and one,

2O MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

ev'n at the turning o' the tide ; for after I saw him
fumble with the sheets, and play with flowers, and
smile upon his fingers' end, I knew there was but one
way ; for his nose was as sharp as a pen, and a'
babbled of green fields." As the genius of Shakes
peare makes Falstaff a child again upon sunny slopes,
decked with daisies, so death takes the dying back
to the scenes of their childhood, and they are clasped
once more to the breasts of mothers. They go back,
for the reason that nearly every superstition in the
world has been sanctified by some sweet and placid
mother. Remember, the superstition has never
sanctified the mother, but the mother has sanctified
the superstition. The young Mohammedan, who
now lies dying upon some field of battle, thinks sweet
and tender thoughts of home and mother, and will,
as the blood oozes from his veins, repeat some holy
verse from the blessed Koran. Every superstition in
the world that is now held sacredhas been made so by
mothers, by fathers, by the recollections of home. I
know what it has cost the noble, the brave, the tender,
to throw away every superstition, although sanctified
by the memory of those they loved. Whoever has
thrown away these superstitions has been pursued by
his fellow-men. From the day of the death of Vol
taire the church has pursued him as though he had

MV REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 21

been the vilest criminal. A little over one hundred
years ago, Catholicism, the inventor of instruments of
torture, red with the innocent blood of millions, felt
in its heartless breast the dagger of Voltaire. From
that blow the Catholic Church never can recover.
Livid with hatred she launched at her assassin the
curse of Rome, and ignorant Protestants have echoed
that curse. For myself, I like Voltaire, and when
ever I think of that name, it is to me as a plume
floating above some grand knight — a knight who
rides to a walled city and demands an unconditional
surrender. I like him. He was once impri? jned in the
Bastile, and while in that frightful fortress — and I like
to tell it — he changed his name. His name was Fran
cois Marie Arouet. In his gloomy cell he changed this
name to Voltaire, and when some sixty years after
ward the Bastile was torn down to the very dust,
" Voltaire " was the battle cry of the destroyers who
did it. I like him because he did more for religious
toleration than any other man who ever lived or
died. I admire him because he did more to do away
with torture in civil proceedings than any other man.
I like him because he was always upon the side of
justice, upon the side of progress. I like him in
spite of his faults, because he had many and splendid
virtues. I like him because his doctrines have never

22 MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

brought unhappiness to any country. I like him be
cause he hated tyranny ; and when he died he died as
serenely as ever mortal died; he spoke to his servant
recognizing him as a man. He said to him, calling
him by name : " My friend, farewell." These
were the last words of Voltaire. And this was the
only frightful scene enacted at his bed of death. I
like Voltaire, because for half a century he was the
intellectual emperor of Europe. I like him, because
from his throne at the foot of the Alps he pointed
the finger of scorn at every hypocrite in Christen
dom.

I will give to any clergyman in the city of San
Francisco a thousand dollars in gold to substantiate
the story that the death of Voltaire was not as
peaceful as the coming of the dawn. The same
absurd story is told of Thomas Paine. Thomas
Paine was a patriot — he was the first man in the
world to write these words : " THE FREE AND INDE
PENDENT STATES OF AMERICA." He was the first
man to convince the American people that they
ought to separate themselves from Great Britain.
" His pen did as much, to say the least, for the liberty
of America, as the sword of Washington." The
men who have enjoyed the benefit of his heroic serv
ices repay them with slander and calumny. If

MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 23

there is in this world a crime, ingratitude is a crime.
And as for myself, I am not willing to receive any
thing from any man without making at least an
acknowledgment of my obligation. Yet these clergy
men, whose very right to stand in their pulpits and
preach, was secured to them by such men as Thomas
Paine, delight in slandering the reputation of that
great man. They tell their hearers that he died in
fear, — that he died in agony, hearing devils rattle
chains, and that the infinite God condescended to
frighten a dying man. I will give one thousand
dollars in gold to any clergyman in San Francisco
who will substantiate the truth of the absurd stories
concerning the death of Thomas Paine. There is
not one word of truth in these accounts ; not one
word.

Let me ask one thing, and let me ask it, if you
please, in what is called a reverent spirit. Suppose
that Voltaire and Thomas Paine, and Volney and
Hume and Hobbes had cried out when dying " My
God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me? " what
would the clergymen of this city then have said?

To resort to these foolish calumnies about the great
men who have opposed the superstitions of the
world, is in my judgment, unbecoming any intelli
gent man. The real question is not, who is afraid to

24 MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

die ? The question is, who is right ? The great ques
tion is not, who died right, but who lived right?
There is infinitely more responsibility in living than
in dying. The moment of death is the most unim
portant moment of life. Nothing can be done then.
You cannot even do a favor for a friend, except to
remember him in your will. It is a moment when
life ceases to be of value. While living, while you
have health and strength, you can augment the hap
piness of your fellow-men ; and the man who has
made others happy need not be afraid to die.
Yet these believers, as they call themselves, these
believers who hope for immortality — thousands of
them, will rob their neighbors, thousands of them
will do numberless acts of injustice, when, accord
ing to their belief, the witnesses of their infamy
will live forever ; and the men whom they have
injured and outraged, will meet them in every glit
tering star through all the ages yet to be.

As for me, I would rather do a generous action,
and read the record in the grateful faces of my
fellow-men.

These gentlemen who attack me are orthodox
now, but the men who started their churches were
heretics.

The first Presbyterian was a heretic. The first

MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 25

Baptist was a heretic. The first Congregationalist
was a heretic. The first Christian was denounced as
a blasphemer. And yet these heretics, the moment
they get numerous enough to be in the majority
in some locality, begin to call themselves orthodox.
Can there be any impudence beyond this ?

The first Baptist, as I said before, was a heretic ;
and he was the best Baptist that I have ever heard
anything about. I always liked him. He was a
good man — Roger Williams. He was the first man,
so far as I know, in this country, who publicly said
that the soul of man should be free. And it was a
wonder to me that a man who had sense enough to
say that, could think that any particular form of bap
tism was necessary to salvation. It does strike me
that a man of great brain and thought could not
possibly think the eternal welfare of a human being,
the question whether he should dwell with angels,
or be tossed upon eternal waves of fire, should be
settled by the manner in which he had been baptized.
That seems, to me so utterly destitute of thought
and heart, that it is a matter of amazement to
me that any man ever looked upon the ordinance
of baptism as of any importance whatever. If we
were at the judgment seat to-night, and the Supreme
Being, in our hearing, should ask a man :

26 MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

" Have you been a good man ? " and the man
replied :

" Tolerably good."

" Did you love your wife and children ? "

" Yes."

" Did you try and make them happy? "

" Yes."

" Did you try and make your neighbors happy? "

" Yes, I paid my debts : I gave heaping measure,
and I never cared whether I was thanked for it
or not."

Suppose the Supreme Being then should say :

" Were you ever baptized ? " and the man should
reply :

" I am sorry to say I never was."

Could a solitary person of sense hear that question
asked, by the Supreme Being, without laughing, even
if he knew that his own case was to be called next ?

I happened to be in the company of six or seven
Baptist elders — how I ever got into such bad com
pany, I don't know, — and one of them asked what I
thought about baptism. Well, I never thought much
about it ; did not know much about it ; didn't want
to say anything, but they insisted upon it. I said,
" Well, I'll give you my opinion — with soap, baptism
is a good thing."

MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 2?

The Reverend Mr. Guard has answered me, as I
am informed, upon several occasions. I have read
the reports of his remarks, and have boiled them
down. He said some things about me not entirely
pleasant, which I do not wish to repeat. In his
reply he takes the ground :

First. That the Bible is not an immoral book,
because he swore upon it or by it when he joined
the Masons.

Second. He excuses Solomon for all his crimes
upon the supposition that he had softening of the
brain, or a fatty degeneration of the heart.

Third. That the Hebrews had the right to slay all
the inhabitants of Canaan, according to the doctrine
of the " survival of the fittest." He takes the
ground that the destruction of these Canaanites, the
ripping open of women with child by the sword of
war, was an act of sublime mercy. He justifies a
war of extermination; he applauds every act of
cruelty and murder. He says that the Canaanites
ought to have been turned from their homes ; that
men guilty of no crime except fighting for their
country, old men with gray hairs, old mothers and
little, dimpled, prattling children, ought to have been
sacrificed upon the altar of war ; that it was an act
of sublime mercy to plunge the sword of religious

28 MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

persecution into the bodies of all, old and young-.
This is what the reverend gentleman is pleased to
call mercy. If this is mercy let us have injustice. If
there is in the heavens such a God I am sorry that
man exists. All this, however, is justified upon the
ground that God has the right to do as he pleases
with the being he has created. This I deny. Such
a doctrine is infamously false. Suppose I could take
a stone and in one moment change it into a sentient,
hoping, loving human being, would I have the right
to torture it ? Would I have the right to give it
pain ? No one but a fiend would either exercise or
justify such a right. Even if there is a God who
created us all he has no such right. Above any God
that can exist, in the infinite serenity forever sits the
figure of justice ; and this God, no matter how great
and infinite he may be, is bound to do justice.

Fourth. That God chose the Jews and governed
them personally for thousands of years, and drove
out the Canaanites in order that his peculiar people
might not be corrupted by the example of idolaters ;
that he wished to make of the Hebrews a great
nation, and that, consequently, he was justified in
destroying the original inhabitants of that country.
It seems to me that the end hardly justified the
means. According to the account, God governed

MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 29

the Jews personally for many ages and succeeded in
civilizing them to that degree, that they crucified
him the first opportunity they had. Such an ad
ministration can hardly be called a success.

Fifth. The reverend gentleman seems to think that
the practice of polygamy after all is not a bad thing
when compared with the crime of exhibiting a
picture of Antony and Cleopatra. Upon the cor
rupting influence of such pictures he descants at great
length, and attacks with all the bitterness of the
narrow theologian the masterpieces of art. Allow
me to say one word about art. That is one of the
most beautiful words in our language — Art. And
it never seemed to me necessary for art to go in
partnership with a rag. I like the paintings of
Angelo, of Raffaelle. I like the productions of those
splendid souls that put their ideas of beauty upon
the canvas uncovered.

" There are brave souls in every land

Who worship nature, grand and nude,
And who with swift indignant hand
Tear off the fig leaves of the prude."

Sixth. That it may be true that the Bible sanctions
slavery, but that it is not an immoral book even if it
does.

I can account for these statements, for these argu-

3O MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

ments, only as the reverend gentleman has accounted
for the sins of Solomon — " by a softening of the
brain, or a fatty degeneration of the heart."

It does seem to me that if I were a Christian, and
really thought my fellow-man was going down to
the bottomless pit ; that he was going to misery and
agony forever, it does seem to me that I would try
and save him. It does seem to me, that instead of
having my mouth filled with epithets and invectives ;
instead of drawing the lips of malice back from the
teeth of hatred, it seems to me that my eyes would
be filled with tears. It seems to me that I would do
what little I could to reclaim him. I would talk to
him and of him, in kindness. I would put the arms
of affection about him. I would not speak of him as
though he were a wild beast. I would not speak to
him as though he were a brute. I would think of
him as a man, as a man liable to eternal torture
among the damned, and my heart would be filled
with sympathy, not hatred — my eyes with tears, not
scorn.

If there is anything pitiable, it is to see a man so
narrowed and withered by the blight and breath of
superstition, as cheerfully to defend the most fright
ful crimes of which we have a record — a man so
hardened and petrified by creed and dogma that he

MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 31

hesitates not to defend even the institution of human
slavery — so lost to all sense of pity that he applauds
murder and rapine as though they were acts of the
loftiest self-denial.

The next gentleman who has endeavored to
answer what I have said, is the Rev. Samuel
Robinson. This he has done in his sermon entitled
" Ghosts against God or Ingersoll against Honesty."
I presume he imagines himself to be the defendant
in both cases.

This gentleman apologized for attending an infidel
lecture, upon the ground that he had to contribute to
the support of a " materialistic demon." To say the
least, this is not charitable. But I am satisfied. I
am willing to exchange facts for epithets. I fare so
much better than did the infidels in the olden time
that I am more than satisfied. It is a little thing
that I bear.

The brave men of the past endured the instru
ments of torture. They were stretched upon
racks ; their feet were crushed in iron boots ; they
stood upon the shores of exile and gazed with
tearful eyes toward home and native land. They
were taken from their firesides, from their wives,
from their children ; they were taken to the public
square ; they were chained to stakes, and their ashes

32 MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

were scattered by the countless hands of hatred, I
am satisfied. The disciples of fear cannot touch me.

This gentlemen hated to contribute a cent to the
support of a " materialistic demon." When I saw
that statement I will tell you what I did. I knew
the man's conscience must be writhing in his bosom
to think that he had contributed a dollar toward
my support, toward the support of a " materialistic
demon." I wrote him a letter and I said :

" My Dear Sir : In order to relieve your con
science of the crime of having contributed to the
support of an unbeliever in ghosts,! hereby enclose
the amount you paid to attend my lecture." I then
gave him a little good advice. I advised him to be
charitable, to be kind, and regretted exceedingly
that any man could listen to one of my talks for an
hour and a half and not go away satisfied that all
men had the same right to think.

This man denied having received the money,
but it was traced to him through a blot on the
envelope.

This gentleman avers that everything that I said
about persecution is applicable to the Catholic Church
only. That is what he says. The Catholics have
probably persecuted more than any other church,
simply because that church has had more power,

MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 33

simply because it has been more of a church. It
has to-day a better organization, and as a rule, the
Catholics come nearer believing what they say
about their church than otherChristians do. Was it
a Catholic persecution that drove the Puritan fathers
from England ? Was it not the storm of Episcopal
persecution that filled the sails of the Mayflower ?
Was it not a Protestant persecution that drove the
Ark and Dove to America? Let us be honest.
Who went to Scotland and persecuted the Presby
terians ? Who was it that chained to the stake that
splendid girl by the sands of the sea, for not saying
" God save the king " ? She was worthy to have
been the mother of Caesar. She would not say
" God save the king," but she would say " God
save the king, if it be God's will." Protestants
ordered her to say " God save the king," and no
more. She said, " I will not," and they chained
her to a stake in the sand and allowed her to be
drowned by the rising of the inexorable tide. Who
did this ? Protestants. Who drove Roger Williams
from Massachusetts ? Protestants. Who sold white
Quaker children into slavery? Protestants. Who
cut out the tongues of Quakers ? Who burned and
destroyed men and women and children charged
with impossible crimes ? Protestants. The Protes-

34 MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

tants have persecuted exactly to the extent of their
power. The Catholics have done the same.

I want, however, to be just. The first people to
pass an act of religious toleration in the New
World were the Catholics of Maryland. The next
were the Baptists of Rhode Island, led by Roger
Williams. The Catholics passed the act of religious
toleration, and after the Protestants got into power
again in England, and also in the colony of Mary
land, they repealed the law of toleration and passed
another law declaring the Catholics from under the
protection of all law. Afterward, the Catholics
again got into power and had the generosity and
magnanimity to re-enact the old law. And, so far
as I know, it is the only good record upon the
subject of religious toleration the Catholics have in
this world, and I am always willing to give them
credit for it.

This gentleman also says that infidelity has done
nothing for the world in the development of the arts
and sciences. Does he not know that nearly every
man who took a forward step was denounced by the
church as a heretic and infidel ? Does he not know
that the church has in all ages persecuted the
astronomers, the geologists, the logicians ? Does
he not know that even to-dav the church slanders

MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 35

and maligns the foremost men ? Has he ever
heard of Tyndall, of Huxley ? Is he acquainted with
John W. Draper, one of the leading minds of the
world ? Did he ever hear of Auguste Comte, the
great Frenchman ? Did he ever hear of Descartes,
of Laplace, of Spinoza ? In short, has he ever
heard of a man who took a step in advance of his
time?

Orthodoxy never advances. When it advances,
it ceases to be orthodoxy and becomes heresy.
Orthodoxy is putrefaction. It is intellectual cloaca ;
it cannot advance. What the church calls infidelity
is simply free thought. Every man who really
owns his own brain is, in the estimation of the
church, an infidel.

There is a paper published in this city called The
Occident. The Editor has seen fit to speak of me,
and of the people who have assembled to hear me, in
the lowest, vilest and most scurrilous terms possible.
I cannot afford to reply in the same spirit. He
alleges that the people who assemble to hear me
are the low, the debauched and the infamous. The
man who reads that paper ought to read it with
tongs. It is a Presbyterian sheet ; and would gladly
treat me as John Calvin treated Castalio. Castalio
was the first minister in the history of Christendom

36 MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

who acknowledged the innocence of honest error,
and John Calvin followed him like a sleuth-hound of
perdition. He called him a " dog of Satan ; " said
that he had crucified Christ afresh ; and pursued
him to the very grave. The editor of this paper is
still warming his hands at the fire that burned
Servetus. He has in his heart the same fierce
hatred of everything that is free. But what right
have we to expect anything good of a man who
believes in the eternal damnation of infants ?

There may have been sometime in the history of
the world a worse religion than Old School Presby-
terianism, but if there ever was, from cannibalism to
civilization, I have never heard of it.

I make a distinction between the members and
the creed of that church. I know many who are
a thousand times better than the creed — good, warm
and splendid friends of mine. I would do anything
in the world for them. And I have said to them a
hundred times, " You are a thousand times better
than your creed." But when you come down to the
doctrine of the damnation of infants, it is the de
formity of deformities. The editor of this paper is
engaged in giving the world the cheerful doctrines
of fore -ordination and damnation — those twin com
forts of the Presbyterian creed, and warning them

MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 37

against the frightful effects of reasoning in any
manner for themselves. He regards the intellectu
ally free as the lowest, the vilest and the meanest,
as men who wish to sin, as men who are longing to
commit crime, men who are anxious to throw off all
restraint.

My friends, every chain thrown from the body
puts an additional obligation upon the soul. Every
man who is free, puts a responsibility upon his brain
and upon his heart. You, who never want respons
ibility, give your souls to some church. You, who
never want the feeling that you are under obligation
to yourselves, give your souls away. But if you are
willing to feel and meet responsibility ; if you feel
that you must give an account not only to yourselves
but to every human being whom you injure, then
you must be free. Where there is no freedom, there
can be no responsibility.

It is a mystery to me why the editors of religious
papers are so malicious, why they endeavor to
answer argument with calumny. Is it because they
feel the sceptre slowly slipping from their hands ?
Is it the result of impotent rage ? Is it because
there is being written upon every orthodox brain a
certificate of intellectual inferiority ?

This same editor assures his readers that what I

38 MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

say is not worth answering, and yet he devotes col
umn after column of his journal to that very purpose.
He states that I am no speaker, no orator ; and upon
the same page admits that he did not hear me, giv
ing as a reason that he does not think it right to pay
money for such a purpose. Recollect, that in a
religious paper, a man who professes honesty, criti
cises a statue or a painting, condemns it, and at the
end of the criticism says that he never saw it. He
criticises what he calls the oratory of a man, and at
the end says, " I never heard him, and I never saw
him."

As a matter of fact, I have never heard of any
of these gentlemen who thought it necessary to hear
what any man said in order to answer him.

The next gentleman who answered me is the Rev.
Mr. Ijams. And I must say, so far as I can see, in
his argument, or in his mode of treatment, he is a
kind and considerate gentleman. He makes several
mistakes as to what I really said, but the fault I
suppose must have been in the report. I am made
to say in the report of his sermon, " There is no
sacred place in all the universe." What I did say
was, " There is no sacred place in all the universe
of thought. There is nothing too holy to be investi
gated, nothing too divine to be understood. The

MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 39

fields of thought are fenceless, and without a wall."
I say this to-night.

Mr. Ijams also says that I had declared that man
had not only the right to do right, but also the right
to do wrong. What I really said was, man has the
right to do right, and the right to think right, and
the right to think wrong. Thought is a means of
ascertaining truth, a mode by which we arrive at
conclusions. And if no one has a right to think,
unless he thinks right, he would only have the right
to think upon self-evident propositions. In all re
spects, with the exception of these misstatements to
which I have called your attention, so far as I can
see, Mr. Ijams was perfectly fair, and treated me as
though I had the ordinary rights of a human being.
I take this occasion to thank him.

A great many papers, a great many people, a
good many ministers and a multitude of men, have
had their say, and have expressed themselves with
the utmost freedom. I cannot reply to them all. I
can only reply to those who have made a parade of
answering me. Many have said it is not worth
answering, and then proceeded to answer. They
have said, he has produced no argument, and then
have endeavored to refute it. They have said it is
simply the old straw that has been thrashed over

4O MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

and over again for years and years. If all I have
said is nothing, if it is all idle and foolish, why do
they take up the time of their fellow-men replying to
me ? Why do they fill their religious papers with
criticisms, if all I have said and done reminds them,
according to the Rev. Mr. Guard, of " some little
dog barking at a railway train " ? Why stop the
train, why send for the directors, why hold a con
sultation and finally say, we must settle with that
dog or stop running these cars ?

Probably the best way to answer them all, is to
prove beyond cavil the truth of what I have said.

DOES THE BIBLE TEACH MAN TO ENSLAVE

His BROTHER?

II.

IF this " sacred " book teaches man to enslave his
brother, it is not inspired. A god who would
establish slavery is as cruel and heartless as any
devil could be.

" Moreover, of the children of the strangers that
do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and
of their families that are with you, which they begat
in your land, and they shall be your possession.

"And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your
children after you, to inherit them for a possession.
They shall be your bondmen forever.

" Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which
thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are
round about you ; of them shall ye buy bondmen
and bondmaids." — Leviticus xxv.

This is white slavery. This allows one white
man to buy another, to buy a woman, to separate
families and rob a mother of her child. This makes

(41)

42 MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

the whip upon the naked backs of men and women
a legal tender for labor performed. This is the
kind of slavery established by the most merciful
God. The reason given for all this, is, that the
persons whom they enslaved were heathen. You
may enslave them because they are not orthodox.
If you can find anybody who does not believe in me,
the God of the Jews, you may steal his wife from
his arms, and her babe from the cradle. If you can
find a woman that does not believe in the Hebrew
Jehovah, you may steal her prattling child from her
breast. Can any one conceive of anything more
infamous? Can any one find in the literature of
this world more frightful words ascribed even to a
demon ? And all this is found in that most beautiful
and poetic chapter known as the 25th of Leviticus—
from the Bible — from this sacred gift of God — this
" Magna Charta of human freedom."

2. " If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he
shall serve ; and in the seventh he shall go out free
for nothing.

3. " If he came in by himself, he shall go out by
himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go
out with him.

4. " If his master have given him a wife, and she
hath borne him sons or daughters ; the wife and her

MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 43

children shall be her master's, and he shall go out
by himself.

5. " And if the servant shall plainly say, I love
my master, my wife, and children ; I will not go out
free :

6. "Then his master shall bring him unto the
judges : he shall also bring him to the door, or unto
the door-post ; and his master shall bore his ear
through with an awl ; and he shall serve him for
ever." — Exodus, xxi.

The slave is allowed to have his liberty if he will
give up his wife and children. He must remain in
slavery for the sake of wife and child. This is
another of the laws of the most merciful God. This
God changes even love into a chain. Children are
used by him as manacles and fetters, and wives
become the keepers of prisons. Any man who
believes that such hideous laws were made by an
infinitely wise and benevolent God is, in my judg
ment, insane or totally depraved.

These are the doctrines of the Old Testament.
What is the doctrine of the New ? What message
had he who came from heaven's throne for the
oppressed of earth ? What words of sympathy,
what words of cheer, for those who labored and
toiled without reward ? Let us see :

44 MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

" Servants, be obedient to them that are your
masters, according to the flesh, with fear and
trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto
Christ." — Ephesians, vi.

This is the salutation of the most merciful God to
a slave, to a woman who has been robbed of her
child — to a man tracked by hounds through lonely
swamps — to a girl with flesh torn and bleeding — to
a mother weeping above an empty cradle.

" Servants, be subject to your masters with all
fear ; not only to the good and gentle, but also to
the fro ward." — / Peter ii., 18.

" For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience
toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully." —
i Peter ii.t 19.

It certainly must be an immense pleasure to God
to see a man work patiently for nothing. It must
please the Most High to see a slave with his wife
and child sold upon the auction block. If this slave
escapes from slavery and is pursued, how musical
the baying of the bloodhound must be to the ears
of this most merciful God. All this is simply
infamous. On the throne of this universe there sits
no such monster.

" Servants, obey in all things your masters, ac
cording to the flesh ; not with eye-service, as men

MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 45

pleasers ; but in singleness of heart, fearing God."
— Col. Hi., 22.

The apostle here seems afraid that the slave
would not work every moment that his strength
permitted. He really seems to have feared that he
might not at all times do the very best he could to
promote the interests of the thief who claimed to
own him. And speaking to all slaves, in the name
of the Father of All, this apostle says : " Obey in all
things your masters, not with eye-service, but with
singleness of heart, fearing God." He says to them
in substance, There is no way you can so well please
God as to work honestly for a thief.

1. "Let as many servants as are under the
yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor,
that the name of God and his doctrine be not blas
phemed."

Think of serving God by honoring a robber!
Think of bringing the name and doctrine of
God into universal contempt by claiming to own
yourself!

2. " And they that have believing masters, let
them not despise them, because they are brethren ;
but rather do them service, because they are faithful
and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things
teach and exhort."

46 MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

That is to say, do not despise Christians who steal
the labor of others. Do not hold in contempt the
" faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit," who
turn the cross of Christ into a whipping post.

3. " If any man teach otherwise, and consent
not to wholesome words even to words of our
Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is
according to godliness ;

4. " He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting
about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh
envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

5. " Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds,
and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is
godliness : from such withdraw thyself."

This seems to be the opinion the apostles enter
tained of the early abolitionists. Seeking to give
human beings their rights, seeking to give labor its
just reward, seeking to clothe all men with that
divine garment of the soul, Liberty, — all this was de
nounced by the apostle as a simple strife of words,
whereof cometh envy, railings, evil surmisings and
perverse disputing, destitute of truth.

6. " But godliness with contentment is great
gain.

7. " For we brought nothing into this world,
and it is certain we can carry nothing out.

MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 47

8. " And having food and raiment let us be
therewith content."—/ Tim., vi.

This was intended to make a slave satisfied to hear
the clanking of his chains. This is the reason he
should never try to better his condition. He should
be contented simply with the right to work for noth
ing. If he only had food and raiment, and a thief to
work for, he should be contented. He should solace
himself with the apostolic reflection, that as he
brought nothing into the world, he could carry noth
ing out, and that when dead he would be as happily
situated as his master.

In order to show you what the inspired writer
meant by the word servant, I will read from the 2ist
chapter of Exodus, verses 20 and 2 1 :

" And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with
a rod, and he die under his hand ; he shall be surely
punished.

" Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he
shall not be punished : for he is his money."

Yet, notwithstanding these passages the Christian
Advocate says, " the Bible is the Magna Charta of
our liberty."

After reading that, I was not surprised by the
following in the same paper :

" We regret to record that Ingersoll is on a low

48 MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

plane of infidelity and atheism, not less offensive to
good morals than have been the teachings of infidel
ity during the last century. France has been cursed
with such teachings for a hundred years, and because
of it, to-day her citizens are incapable of self-
government."

What was the condition of France a century ago ?
Were they capable of self-government then ? For
fourteen hundred years the common people of
France had suffered. For fourteen hundred years
they had been robbed by the altar and by the throne.
They had been the prey of priests and nobles. All
were exempt from taxation, except the common
people. The cup of their suffering was full, and the
French people arose in fury and frenzy, and tore the
drapery from the altars of God, and filled the air
with the dust of thrones.

Surely, the slavery of fourteen centuries had not
been produced by the teachings of Voltaire. I stood
only a little while ago at the place where once stood
the Bastile. In my imagination I saw that prison
standing as it stood of yore. I could see it attacked
by the populace. I could see their stormy faces and
hear their cries. And I saw that ancient fortification
of tyranny go down forever. And now where once
stood the Bastile stands the Column of July. Upon

MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 49

its summit is a magnificent statue of Liberty, hold
ing in one hand a banner, in the other a broken
chain, and upon its shining forehead is the star of
progress. There it stands where once stood the
Bastile. And France is as much superior to what it
was when Voltaire was born, as that statue, sur
mounting the Column of July, is more beautiful than
the Bastile that stood there once with its cells of
darkness, and its dungeons of horror.

And yet we are now told that the French people
have rendered themselves incapable of government,
simply because they have listened to the voice of pro
gress. There are magnificent men in France. From
that country have come to the human race some of
the grandest and holiest messages the ear of man has
ever heard. The French people have given to
history some of the most touching acts of self-
sacrifice ever performed beneath the amazed stars.

For my part, I admire the French people. I can
not forget the Rue San Antoine, nor the red cap of
liberty. I can never cease to remember that the
tricolor was held aloft in Paris, while Europe was in
chains, and while liberty, with a bleeding breast, was
in the Inquisition of Spain. And yet we are now
told by a religious paper, that France is not capable
of self-government. I suppose it was capable of

5O MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

self-government under the old regime, at the time
of the massacre of St. Bartholomew. I suppose it
was capable of self-government when women were
seen yoked with cattle pulling plows. I suppose it
was capable of self-government when all who labored
were in a condition of slavery.

In the old times, even among the priests, there
were some good, some sincere and most excellent
men. I have read somewhere of a sermon preached
by one of these in the Cathedral of Notre Dame.
This old priest, among other things, said that the
soul of a beggar was as dear to God as the soul of
the richest of his people, and that Jesus Christ died
as much for a beggar as for a prince. One French
peasant, rough with labor, cried out : " I propose
three cheers for Jesus Christ." I like such things.
I like to hear of them. I like to repeat them. Paris
has been a kind of volcano, and has made the
heavens lurid with its lava of hatred, but it has also
contributed more than any other city to the intel
lectual development of man. France has produced
some infamous men, among others John Calvin, but
for one Calvin, she has produced a thousand bene
factors of the human race.

The moment the French people rise above the
superstitions of the church, they will be in the

MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 5 1

highest sense capable of self-government. The
moment France succeeds in releasing herself from
the coils of Catholicism — from the shadows of super
stition — from the foolish forms and mummeries of
the church — from the intellectual tyranny of a
thousand years — she will not only be capable of
self-government, but will govern herself. Let the
priests be usefully employed. We want no over
seers of the mind ; no slave-drivers for the soul.
We cannot afford to pay hypocrites for depriving us
of liberty. It is a waste of money to pay priests to
frighten our children, and paralyze the intellect of
women.

WAS THE WORLD CREATED IN SIX DAYS?

III.

FOR hundreds of years it was contended by all
Christians that the earth was made in six days,
literal days of twenty-four hours each, and that on
the seventh day the Lord rested from his labor.
Geologists have driven the church from this position,
and it is now claimed that the days mentioned in the
Bible are periods of time. This is a simple evasion,
not in any way supported by the Scriptures. The
Bible distinctly and clearly says that the world
was created in six days. There is not within its
lids a clearer statement. It does not say six periods.
It was made according to that book in six days :

31. " And God saw everything that he had made,
and, behold, it was very good. And the evening
and the morning were the sixth day." — Genesis i.

1. " Thus the heavens and the earth were finished,
and all the host of them.

2. " And on the seventh day God ended his work

(52)

MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 5$

which he had made ; and he rested on the seventh
day from all his work which he had made.

3. " And God blessed the seventh day (not
seventh period), and sanctified it ; because that in it
he had rested from all his work which God created
and made." — Genesis ii.

From the following passages it seems clear what
was meant by the word days :

1 5. "Six days may work be done; but in the
seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord :
whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he
shall surely be put to death." — Served him right !

1 6. " Wherefore, the children of Israel shall keep
the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath, throughout
their generations, for a perpetual covenant.

17. " It is a sign between me and the children of
Israel forever ; for in six days the Lord made heaven
and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and
was refreshed.

1 8. " And he gave unto Moses, when he had
made an end of communing with him upon Mount
Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, writ
ten with the finger of God." — Exodus xxxi.

12. " Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day
when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the
children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel,

54 MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon, and thou, Moon,
in the valley of Ajalon.

13. "And the sun stood still, and the moon stay
ed, until the people had avenged themselves upon
their enemies. Is not this written in the book
ofjasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of
heaven ; and hasted not to go down about a whole
day.

14. "And there was no day like that before it or
after it, that the Lord hearkened unto the voice of a
man : for the Lord fought for Israel." — Josh. x.

These passages must certainly convey the idea
that this world was made in six days, not six periods.
And the reason why they were to keep the Sabbath
was because the Creator rested on the seventh day
— not period. If you say six periods, instead of six
days, what becomes of your Sabbath ? The only
reason given in the Bible for observing the Sabbath
is that God observed it — that he rested from his
work that day and was refreshed. Take this reason
away and the sacredness of that day has no founda
tion in the Scriptures.

WHAT IS THE ASTRONOMY OF THE BIBLE?

IV.

WHEN people were ignorant of all the sciences
the Bible was understood by those who
read it the same as by those who wrote it. From
time to time discoveries were made that seemed
inconsistent with the Scriptures. At first, theolo
gians denounced the discoverers of all facts incon
sistent with the Bible, as atheists and scoffers.

The Bible teaches us that the earth is the centre of
the universe ; that the sun and moon and stars
revolve around this speck called the earth. The
men who discovered that all this was a mistake
were denounced by the ignorant clergy of that day,
precisely as the ignorant clergy of our time denounce
the advocates of free thought. When the doctrine
of the earth's place in the solar system was demon
strated ; when persecution could no longer conceal
the mighty truth, then it was that the church made
an effort to harmonize the Scriptures with the

(68)

56 MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

discoveries of science. When the utter absurdity
of the Mosaic account of creation became apparent
to all thoughtful men, the church changed the read
ing of the Bible. Then it was pretended that the
" days " of creation were vast periods of time.
When it was shown to be utterly impossible that the
sun revolved around the earth, then the account
given by Joshua of the sun standing still for the
space of a whole day, was changed into a figure of
speech. It was said that Joshua merely conformed
to the mode of speech common in his day ; and that
when he said the sun stood still, he merely intended
to convey the idea that the earth ceased turning
upon its axis. They admitted that stopping the
sun could not lengthen the day, and for that reason
it must have been the earth that stopped. But you
will remember that the moon stood still in the valley
of Ajalon — that the moon stayed until the people
had avenged themselves upon their enemies.

One would naturally suppose that the sun would
have given sufficient light to enable the Jews to
avenge themselves upon their enemies without any
assistance from the moon. Of course, if the moon
had not stopped, the relations between the earth and
moon would have been changed.

Is there a sensible man in the world who believes

MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 57

this wretched piece of ignorance ? Is it possible
that the religion of this nineteenth century has for its
basis such childish absurdities ? According to this
account, what was the sun, or rather the earth,
stopped for? It was stopped in order that the
Hebrews might avenge themselves upon the Amor-
ites. For the accomplishment of such a purpose the
earth was made to pause. Why should an almost
infinite force be expended simply for the purpose of
destroying a handful of men ? Why this waste of
force ? Let me explain. I strike my hands to
gether. They feel a sudden heat. Where did the
heat come from ? Motion has been changed into
heat. You will remember that there can be no
destruction of force. It disappears in one form only
to reappear in another. The earth, rotating at the
rate of one thousand milesan hour, was stopped. The
motion of this vast globe would have instantly been
changed into heat. It has been calculated by one of
the greatest scientists of the present day that to stop
the earth would generate as much heat as could be
produced by burning a world as large as this of solid
coal. And yet, all this force was expended for the
paltry purpose of defeating a few poor barbarians.
The employment of so much force for the accom
plishment of so insignificant an object would be as

58 MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

useless as bringing all the intellect of a great man to
bear in answering the arguments of the clergymen of
San Francisco.

The waste of that immense force in stopping the
planets in their grand courses, for the purpose
claimed, would be like using a Krupp gun to destroy
an insect to which a single drop of water is " an
unbounded world." How is it possible for men of
ordinary intellect, not only to endorse such ignorant
falsehoods, but to malign those who do not ? Can
anything be more debasing to the intellect of man
than a belief in the astronomy of the Bible ? Ac
cording to the Scriptures, the world was made out
of nothing, and the sun, moon, and stars, of the
nothing that happened to be left. To the writers
of the Bible the firmament was solid, and in it were
grooves along which the stars were pushed by
angels. From the Bible Cosmas constructed his
geography and astronomy. His book was passed
upon by the church, and was declared to be the
truth concerning the subjects upon which he treated.

This eminent geologist and astronomer, taking
the Bible as his guide, found and taught : First,
that the earth was flat ; second, that it was a vast
parallelogram ; third, that in the middle there was
a vast body of land, then a strip of water all around

MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 59

it, then a strip of land. He thought that on the
outer strip of land people lived before the flood —
that at the time of the flood, Noah in his Ark
crossed the strip of water and landed on the shore
of the country, in the middle of the world, where we
now are. This great biblical scholar informed the
true believers of his day that in the outer strip of
land were mountains, around which the sun and
moon revolved ; that when the sun was on the side
of the mountain next the land occupied by man, it
was day, and when on the other side, it was
night.

Mr. Cosmas believed the Bible, and regarded
Joshua as the most eminent astronomer of his day.
He also taught that the firmament was solid, and
that the angels pushed and drew the stars. He
tells us that these angels attended strictly to their
business, that each one watched the motions of all
the others so that proper distances might always be
maintained, and all confusion avoided. All this was
believed by the gentlemen who made most of our
religion. The great argument made by Cosmas to
show that the earth must be flat, was the fact that
the Bible stated that when Christ should come the
second time, in glory, the whole world should see
him. " Now," said Cosmas, " if the world is round,

6O MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

how could the people on the other side see the
Lord when he comes ? " This settled the question.

These were the ideas of the fathers of the church.
These men have been for centuries regarded as
almost divinely inspired. Long after they had
become dust they governed the world. The super
stitions they planted, their descendants watered with
the best and bravest blood. To maintain their
ignorant theories, the brain of the world was dwarfed
for a thousand years, and the infamous work is still
being prosecuted.

The Bible was regarded as not only true, but as
the best of all truth. Any new theory advanced,
was immediately examined in the light, or rather in
the darkness, of revelation, and if according to that
test it was false, it was denounced, and the person
bringing it forward forced to recant. It would have
been a far better course to have discovered every
theory found to be in harmony with the Scriptures.

And yet we are told by the clergy and religious
press of this city, that the Bible is the foundation of
all science.

DOES THE BIBLE TEACH THE EXISTENCE OF THAT
IMPOSSIBLE CRIME CALLED WITCHCRAFT ?

v. . />

IT was said by Sir Thomas More that to give up
witchcraft was to give up the Bible itself. This
idea was entertained by nearly all the eminent
theologians of a hundred years ago. In my judg
ment, they were right. To give up witchcraft is to
give up, in a great degree at least, the supernatural.
To throw away the little ghosts simply prepares the
mind of man to give up the great ones. The
founders of nearly all creeds, and of all religions
properly so-called, have taught the existence of
good and evil spirits. They have peopled the dark
with devils and the light with angels. They have
crowded hell with demons and heaven with seraphs.
The moment these good and evil spirits, these angels
and fiends, disappear from the imaginations of men,
and phenomena are accounted for by natural rather
than by supernatural means, a great step has been

(61)

62 MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

taken in the direction of what is now known as
materialism. While the church believes in witch
craft, it is in a greatly modified form. The evil
spirits are not as plenty as in former times, and
more phenomena are accounted for by natural
means. Just to the extent that belief has been lost
in spirits, just to that extent the church has lost its
power and authority. When men ceased to account
for the happening of any event by ascribing it to
the direct action of good or evil spirits, and began
to reason from known premises, the chains of
superstition began to grow weak. Into such dis
repute has witchcraft at last fallen that many
Christians not only deny the existence of these evil
spirits, but take the ground that no such thing is
taught in the Scriptures. Let us see :

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." — Exodus
xxii., 18.

7. " Then said Saul unto his servants, Seek me a
woman that hath a familiar spirit, that I may go to
her, and enquire of her. And his servants said to
him, Behold, there is a woman that hath a spirit at
Endor.

8. " And Saul disguised himself, and put on
other raiment, and he went, and two men with him,
and they came to the woman by night ; and he

MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 63

said, I pray thee, divine unto me by the familiar
spirit, and bring me him up, whom I shall name
unto thee.

9. " And the woman said unto him, Behold, thou
knowest what Saul hath done, how he hath cut off
those that have familiar spirits, and the wizards out
of the land ; wherefore, then, layest thou a snare
for my life, to cause me to die ?

10. " And Saul sware to her by the Lord, saying,
As the Lord liveth, there shall no punishment
happen to thee for this thing.

11. "Then said the woman, Whom shall I bring
up unto thee ? And he said, Bring me up
Samuel.

12. "And when the woman saw Samuel she
cried with a loud voice : and the woman spake to
Saul, saying, Why hast thou deceived me ? for thou
art Saul.

13. " And the king said unto her, Be not afraid :
for what sawest thou ? And the woman said unto
Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth.

14. " And he said unto her, What form is he of?
And she said, An old man cometh up ; and he is
covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that it
was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the
ground, and bowed himself.

64 MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

15 ^[. "And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast
thou disquieted me to bring me up ? " — 2 Samuel,
xxviii.

This reads very much like an account of a modern
spiritual seance. Is it not one of the wonderful
things of the world that men and women who
believe this account of the witch of Endor, who
believe all the miracles and all the ghost stories
of the Bible, deny with all their force the truth of
modern Spiritualism. So far as I am concerned, I
would rather believe some one who has heard what
he relates, who has seen what he tells, or at least
thinks he has seen what he tells. I would rather
believe somebody I know, whose reputation for
truth is good among those who know him. I would
rather believe these people than to take the words
of those who have been in their graves for four
thousand years, and about whom I know nothing.

31 ^f. " Regard not them that have familiar spirits,
neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them ; I
am the Lord, your God." — Leviticus xix.

6 ^f . " And the soul that turneth after such as have
familiar spirits, and after wizards, I will even set my
face against that soul, and will cut him off from
among his people." — Leviticus xx.

10. " There shall not be found among you any

MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 65

one that useth divination, or an observer of times,
or an enchanter, or a witch,

11. " Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar
spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.

12. " For all that do these things are an abomina
tion unto the Lord." — Deut. xviii.

I have given you a few of the passages found in
the Old Testament upon this subject, showing con
clusively that the Bible teaches the existence of
witches, wizards and those who have familiar spirits.
In the New Testament there are passages equally
strong, showing that the Savior himself was a
believer in the existence of evil spirits, and in the
existence of a personal devil. Nothing can be
plainer than the teaching of the following :

1. " Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the
wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

2. " And when he had fasted forty days and forty
nights, he was afterward an hungered.

3. " And when the tempter came to him, he said,
If thou be the Son of God, command that these
stones be made bread.

4. " But he answered and said, It is written, Man
shall not live by bread alone, but by every word
that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

5. " Then the devil taketh him up into the

66 MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the
temple.

6. " And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of
God, cast thyself down : for it is written, He shall
give his angels charge concerning thee : and in
their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time
thou dash thy foot against a stone.

7. "Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou
shalt not tempt the Lord, thy God.

8. " Again, the devil taketh him up into an
exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the
kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them ;

9. " And saith unto him, All these things will I
give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

10. "Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence,
Satan : for it is written, Thou shalt worship the
Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

11. "Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold,
angels came and ministered unto him." — Matt. iv.

If this does not teach the existence of a personal
devil, there is nothing within the lids of the
Scriptures teaching the existence of a personal God.
If this does not teach the existence of evil spirits,
there is nothing in the Bible going to show that
good spirits exist either in this world or the next.

1 6 ^[. "When the even was come they brought

MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 67

unto him many that were possessed with devils :
and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed
all that were sick." — Matt. vii.

1. " And they came over unto the other side of
the sea, into the country of the Gadarenes.

2. " And when he was come out of the ship,
immediately there met him out of the tombs a man
with an unclean spirit,

3. " Who had his dwelling among the tombs ;
and no man could bind him, no, not with chains :

4. " Because that he had been often bound with
fetters and chains, and the chains ha.d been plucked
asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces :
neither could any man tame him.

5. " And always, night and day, he was in the
mountains, and in the tombs, crying and cutting
himself with stones.

6. " But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and
worshipped him,

7. " And cried with a loud voice, and said, What
have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou son of the most
high God ? I adjure thee by God, that thou tor
ment me not.

8. " For he said unto him, Come out of the man,
thou unclean spirit.

9. " And he asked him, What is thy name ? And

68 MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

he answered, saying, My name is Legion, for we are
many.

11. " Now, there was nigh unto the mountains a
great herd of swine feeding.

12. "And all the devils besought him, saying,
Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them.

13. " And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And
the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the
swine ; and the herd ran violently down a steep
place into the sea, and they were about two thou
sand ; and were choked in the sea." — Mark v.

The doctrine of witchcraft does not stop here.
The power of casting out devils was bequeathed by
the Savior to his apostles and followers, and to all
who might believe in him throughout all the coming
time :

17. " And these signs shall follow them that
believe : In my name shall they cast out devils ;
they shall speak with new tongues ;

1 8. " And they shall take up serpents ; and if
they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them ;
they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall
recover." — Mark xvi.

I would like to see the clergy who have been
answering me, tested in this way : Let them drink
poison, let them take up serpents, let them cure the

MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 69

sick by the laying on of hands, and I will then
believe that they believe.

I deny the witchcraft stories of the world.
Witches are born in the ignorant, frightened minds
of men. Reason will exorcise them. " They are
tales told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signify
ing nothing." These devils have covered the world
with blood and tears. They have filled the earth
with fear. They have filled the lives of children
with darkness and horror. They have peopled the
sweet world of imagination with mo.isters. They
have made religion a strange mingling of fear and
ferocity. I am doing what I can to reave the
heavens of these monsters. For my part, I laugh
at them all. I hold them all in contempt, ancient
and modern, great and small.

THE BIBLE IDEA OF THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN.

VI.

ALL religion has for its basis the tyranny of
God and the slavery of man.

1 8. ^f " If a man have a stubborn and rebellious
son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or
the voice of his mother, and that, when they have
chastened him, will not hearken unto them,

19. "Then shall his father and his mother lay
hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of
his city, and unto the gate of his place.

20. " And they shall say unto the elders of his
city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he
will not obey our voice, he is a glutton and a
drunkard.

21. " And all the men of his city shall stone him
with stones, that he die ; so shalt thou put evil
away from among you ; and all Israel shall hear,
and fear." — Deut. xxL

Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac

MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 7 1

as a sacrifice. He proceeded to obey. And the
boy, being then about thirty years of age, was not
consulted. At the command of a phantom of the
air, a man was willing to offer upon the altar his
% only son. And such was the slavery of children,
that the only son had not the spirit to resist.

Have you ever read the story of Jephthah ?

30 " And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the Lord,
and said, "If thou shalt without fail deliver the
children of Ammon into mine hands,

31. "Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh
forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I
return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall
surely be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a
burnt offering.

32. ^[ "So Jephthah passed over unto the children
of Ammon to fight against them ; and the Lord de
livered them into his hands.

33. " And he smote them from Aroer, even till
thou come to Minnith, even twenty cities, and unto
the plain of the vineyards, with a very great
slaughter. Thus the children of Ammon were sub
dued before the children of Israel.

34. H" " And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his
house, and behold, his daughter came out to meet
him with timbrels and with dances ; and she was

72 MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

his only child ; beside her he had neither son nor
daughter.

35. " And it came to pass, when he saw her, that
he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter !
thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of
them that trouble me : for I have opened my mouth
unto the Lord, and I cannot go back. . . .

39. "And it came to pass at the end of two months,
that she returned unto her father, who did with her
according to his vow which he had vowed." —
Judges xi.

Is there in the history of the world a sadder
thing than this ? What can we think of a father
who would sacrifice his daughter to a demon God ?
And what can we think of a God who would accept
such a sacrifice ? Can such a God be worthy of the
worship of man ? I plead for the rights of children.
I plead for the government of kindness and love. I
p\ead for the republic of home, the democracy of
the fireside. I plead for affection. And for this I
am pursued by invective. For this I am called a
fiend, a devil, a monster, by Christian editors and
clergymen, by those who pretend to love their
enemies and pray for those that despitefully use
them.

Allow me to give you another instance of affec-

MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 73

tion related in the Scriptures. There was, it seems,
a most excellent man by the name of Job. The
Lord was walking up and down, and happening to
meet Satan, said to him : " Are you acquainted
with my servant Job ? Have you noticed what an
excellent man he is ? " And Satan replied to him
and said : " Why should he not be an excellent
man — you have given him everything he wants ?
Take from him what he has and he will curse you."
And thereupon the Lord gave Satan the power to
destroy the property and children of Job. In a
little while these high contracting parties met
again ; and the Lord seemed somewhat elated with
his success, and called again the attention of Satan
to the sinlessness of Job. Satan then told him to
touch his body and he would curse him. And
thereupon power was given to Satan over the body
of Job, and he covered his body with boils. Yet in
all this, Job did not sin with his lips.

This book seems to have been written to show
the excellence of patience, and to prove that at last
God will reward all who will bear the afflictions of
heaven with fortitude and without complaint. The
sons and daughters of Job had been slain, and then
the Lord, in order to reward Job, gave him other
children, other sons and other daughters — not the

74 MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

same ones he had lost ; but others. And this, ac
cording to the writer, made ample amends. Is that
the idea we now have of love ? If I have a child,
no matter how deformed that child may be, and if it
dies, nobody can make the loss to me good by
bringing a more beautiful child. I want the one I
loved and the one I lost

THE GALLANTRY OF GOD.
VII.

I HAVE said that the Bible is a barbarous book ;
that it has no respect for the rights of woman.
Now I propose to prove it. It takes something
besides epithets and invectives to prove or disprove
anything. Let us see what the sacred volume says
concerning the mothers and daughters of the human
race.

A man who does not in his heart of hearts
respect woman, who has not there an altar at which
he worships the memory of mother, is less than a
man.

11. "Let the woman learn in silence with all
subjection.

12. " But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to
usurp authority over the man, but to be in
silence."

The reason given for this, and the only reason
that occurred to the sacred writer, was :

13. " For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

(76)

76 MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

14. " And Adam was not deceived, but the
woman being deceived was in the transgression.

15. "Notwithstanding, she shall be saved in
child-bearing, if they continue in faith and charity
and holiness with sobriety." — / Tim. ii.

3. " But I would have you know, that the head of
every man is Christ ; and the head of the woman is
the man ; and the head of Christ is God."

That is to say, the woman sustains the same
relation to the man that man does to Christ,
and man sustains the same relation to Christ that
Christ does to God.

This places the woman infinitely below the
man. And yet this barbarous idiocy is regarded
as divinely inspired. How can any woman look
other than with contempt upon such passages ?
How can any woman believe that this is the will of
a most merciful God ?

7. " For a man, indeed, ought not to cover his
head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of
God ; but the woman is the glory of man."

And this is justified from the remarkable fact set
forth in the next verse :

8. " For the man is not of the woman ; but the
woman of the man."

This same chivalric gentleman also says :

MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 77

9. " Neither was the man created for the woman ;
but the woman for the man." — / Cor. xi.

22. " Wives, submit yourselves unto your own
husbands, as unto the Lord."

Is it possible for abject obedience to go beyond
this ?

23. " For the husband is the head of the wife,
even as Christ is the head of the Church, and he is
the saviour of the body.

24. " Therefore, as the Church is subject unto
Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in
everything." — Eph. v.

Even the Savior did not put man and woman
upon an equality. A man could divorce his wife, but
the wife could not divorce her husband.

Every noble woman should hold such apostles
and such ideas in contempt. According to the Old
Testament, woman had to ask pardon and had to be
purified from the crime of having born sons and
daughters. To make love and maternity crimes is
infamous.

10. " When thou goest forth to war against thine
enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered
them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them
captive,

11. " And seest among the captives a beautiful

78 MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou
woultfest have her to thy wife,

1 2. " Then thou shalt bring her home to thy
house ; and she shall shave her head, and pare her
nails." — Deut. xxi.

This is barbarism, no matter whether it came from
heaven or from hell, from a God or from a devil,
from the golden streets of the New Jerusalem or
from the very Sodom of perdition. It is barbarism
complete and utter.

DOES THE BIBLE SANCTION POLYGAMY
AND CONCUBINAGE?
VIII.

READ the infamous order of Moses in the 3ist
chapter of Numbers — an order unfit to be
reproduced in print — an order which I am unwilling
to repeat. Read the 3 1 st chapter of Exodus. Read
the 2ist chapter of Deuteronomy. Read the life of
Abraham, of David, of Solomon, of Jacob, and then
tell me the sacred Bible does not teach polygamy
and concubinage. All the languages of the world
are insufficient to express the filth of polygamy. It
makes man a beast — woman a slave. It destroys the
fireside. It makes virtue an outcast. It makes
home a lair of wild beasts. It is the infamy of in
famies. Yet this is the doctrine of the Bible — a
doctrine defended even by Luther and Melancthon.
It is by the Bible that Brigham Young justifies the
practice of this beastly horror. It takes from
language those sweetest words, husband, wife, fathc

(79)

8O MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

mother, child and lover. It takes us back to the
barbarism of animals, and leaves the heart a den in
which crawl and hiss the slimy serpents of loathsome
lust. Yet the book justifying this infamy is the book
upon which rests the civilization of the nineteenth cen
tury. And because I denounce this frightful thing, the
clergy denounce me as a demon, and the infamous
Christian Advocate says that the moral sentiment
of this State ought to denounce this Illinois Catiline
for his blasphemous utterances and for his base and
debasing scurrility.

DOES THE BIBLE UPHOLD AND JUSTIFY

POLITICAL TYRANNY?

IX.

FOR my part, I insist that man has not only the
capacity, but the right to govern himself. All
political authority is vested in the people themselves,
They have the right to select their officers and
agents, and these officers and agents are responsible
to the people. Political authority does not come
from the clouds. Man should not be governed by
the aristocracy of the air. The Bible is not a Repub
lican or Democratic book. Exactly the opposite
doctrine is taught. From that volume we learn that
the people have no power whatever ; that all power
and political authority comes from on high, and that
all the kings, all the potentates and powers, have
been ordained of God ; that all the ignorant and
cruel kings have been placed upon the world's
thrones by the direct act of Deity. The Scriptures
teach us that the common people have but one duty

(81)

82 MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

— the duty of obedience. Let me read to you some
of the political ideas in the great " Magna Charta "
of human liberty.

1. " Let every soul be subject unto the higher
powers. For there is no power but of God; the
powers that be are ordained of God.

2. " Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power,
resisteth the ordinance of God : and they that resist
shall receive to themselves damnation."

According to this, George III. was ordained of
God. He was King of Great Britian by divine right,
and by divine right was the lawful King of the
American Colonies. The leaders in the Revolution
ary struggle resisted the power, and according to
these passages, resisted the ordinances of God ; and
for that resistance they are promised the eternal
recompense of damnation.

3. " For rulers are not a terror to good works,
but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the
power ? do that which is good, and thou shalt have
praise of the same. . . .

5. " Wherefore, ye must needs be subject, not
only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

6. ' ' For, for this cause pay ye tribute also ; for
they are God's ministers, attending continually upon
this very thing." — Romans^ xiii.

MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 8$

13. "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of
man for the Lord's sake ; whether it be to the king
as supreme ;

14. " Or unto governors, as unto them that are
sent by him for the punishment of evil-doers, and
for the praise of them that do well.

1 5. " For so is the will of God." — / Pet. ii.

Had these ideas been carried out, political pro
gress in the world would have been impossible.
Upon the necks of the people still would have been
the feet of kings. I deny this wretched, this in
famous doctrine. Whether higher powers are or
dained of God or not, if those higher powers
endeavor to destroy the rights of man, I for one
shall resist. Whenever and wherever the sword of
rebellion is drawn in support of a human right, I am
a rebel. The despicable doctrine of submission to
titled wrong and robed injustice finds no lodgment
in the brain of a man. The real rulers are the
people, and the rulers so-called are but the servants
of the people. They are not ordained of any God.
All political power comes from and belongs to man.
Upon these texts of Scripture rest the thrones of
Europe. For fifteen hundred years these verses
have been repeated by brainless kings and heartless
priests. For fifteen hundred years each one of

84 MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

these texts has been a bastile in which has been
imprisoned the pioneers of progress. Each one of
these texts has been an obstruction on the highway
of humanity. Each one has been a fortification
behind which have crouched the sainted hypocrites
and the titled robbers. According to these texts, a
robber gets his right to rob from God. And it is
the duty of the robbed to submit. The thief gets
his right to steal from God. The king gets his
right to trample upon human liberty from God. I
say, fight the king — fight the priest.

THE RELIGIOUS LIBERTY OF GOD.
x.

THE Bible denounces religious liberty. After
covering the world with blood, after having
made it almost hollow with graves, Christians are
beginning to say that men have a right to differ up
on religious questions provided the questions about
which they differ are not considered of great im
portance. The motto of the Evangelical Alliance is :

" In non-essentials, Liberty ; in essentials, Unity."
The Christian world have condescended to say that
upon all non-essential points we shall have the right
to think for ourselves ; but upon matters of the least
importance, they will think and speak for us. In
this they are consistent. They but follow the teach
ings of the God they worship. They but adhere to
the precepts and commands of the sacred Scriptures.
Within that volume there is no such thing as relig-
ous toleration. Within that volume there is not one
particle of mercy for an unbeliever. For all who

(85)

86 MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

think for themselves, for all who are the owners of
their own souls, there are threatenings, curses and
anathemas. Any Christian who to-day exercises the
least toleration is to that extent false to his religion.
Let us see what the " Magna Charta " of liberty
says upon this subject :

6. If "If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy
son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or
thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee
secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods,
which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers ;

7. " Namely of the gods of the people which are
round about you, nigh unto thee, or afar off from
thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the
other end of the earth ;

8. " Thou shalt not consent unto him ; nor hearken
unto him ; neither shall thine eye pity him ; neither
shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him.

9. " But thou shalt surely kill him ; thine hand
shall be first upon him to put him to death, and
afterwards the hand of all the people ;

10. "And thou shalt stone him with stones, that
he die ; because he hath sought to thrust thee away
from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of
the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage." —
DeuL xiii.

MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 87

That is the religious liberty of the Bible. If the
wife of your bosom had said, " I like the religion of
India better than the religion of Palestine," it was
then your duty to kill her, and the merciful Most
High —understand me, I do not believe in any mer
ciful Most High — said :

" Thou shalt not pity her but thou shalt surely kill ;
thy hand shall be the first upon her to put her to
death."

This I denounce as infamously infamous. If it is
necessary to believe in such a God, if it is necessary
to adore such a Deity in order to be saved, I will
take my part joyfully in perdition. Let me read you
a few more extracts from the " Magna Charta " of
human liberty ;

2. ^f " If there be found among you, within any of
thy gates which the Lord thy God giveth thee, man
or woman that hath wrought wickedness in the sight
of the Lord thy God, in transgressing his covenant,

3. "And hath gone and served other gods, and
worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any
of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded ;

4. "And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it,
and enquired diligently, and behold, it be true, and
the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought
in Israel ;

88 MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

' 5. " Then shaltthou bring forth that man, or that
woman, which have committed that wicked thing,
unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and
shalt stone them with stones till they die."

Under this law if the woman you loved had said :
" Let us worship the sun ; I am tired of this jealous
and bloodthirsty Jehovah ; let us worship the sun ;
let us kneel to it as it rises over the hills, filling the
world with light and love, when the dawn stands
jocund on the mountain's misty top ; it is the sun
whose beams illumine and cover the earth with
verdure and with beauty ; it is the sun that covers
the trees with leaves, that carpets the earth with
grass and adorns the world with flowers ; I adore
the sun because in its light I have seen your eyes ;
it has given to me the face of my babe ; it has clothed
my life with joy ; let us in gratitude fall down and
worship the glorious beams of the sun."

For this offence she deserved not only death, but
death at your hands :

" Thine eye shall not pity her ; neither shalt thou
spare ; neither shalt thou conceal her.

" But thou shalt surely kill her : thy hand shall be
the first upon her to put her to death, and after
wards the hand of all the people.

"And thou shalt stone her with stones that she die."

MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 89

For my part I had a thousand times rather wor
ship the sun than a God who would make such a
law or give such a command. This you may say
is the doctrine of the Old Testament — what is the
doctrine of the New?

" He that believes and is baptized shall be saved ;
and he that believeth not shall be damned."

That is the religious liberty of the New Testament.
That is the " tidings of great joy."

Every one of these words has been a chain upon
the limbs, a whip upon the backs of men. Every one
has been a fagot. Every one has been a sword.
Every one has been a dungeon, a scaffold, a rack.
Every one has been a fountain of tears. These
words have filled the hearts of men with hatred.
These words invented all the instruments of torture.
These words covered the earth with blood.

For the sake of argument, suppose that the Bible
is an inspired book. If then, as is contended, God
gave these frightful laws commanding religious in
tolerance to his chosen people, and afterward this
same God took upon himself flesh, and came among
the Jews and taught a different religion, and they
crucified him, did he not reap what he had sown ?

DOES THE BIBLE DESCRIBE A GOD OF MERCY ?

XI.

IS it possible to conceive of a more jealous, re
vengeful, changeable, unjust, unreasonable, cruel
being than the Jehovah of the Hebrews? Is it
possible to read the words said to have been spoken
by this Deity, without a shudder? Is it possible to
contemplate his character without hatred ?

" I will make mine arrows drunk with blood and my
sword shall devour flesh/' — Deut. xxxii.

Is this the language of an infinitely kind and ten
der parent to his weak, his wandering and suffering
children ?

" Thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thine
enemies, and the tongue of thy dogs in the same."
Psalms, Ixviii.

Is it possible that a God takes delight in seeing
dogs lap the blood of his children ?

22. "And the Lord thy God will put out those
nations before thee by little and little ; thou mayest
not consume them at once, lest the beasts of the
field increase upon thee. (80)

MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 91

23. " But the Lord thy God shall deliver them unto
thee, and shall destroy them with a mighty destruc
tion, until they be destroyed.

24. "And he shall deliver their kings into thine
hand, and thou shalt destroy their name from
under heaven ; there shall no man be able to stand
before thee, until thou have destroyed them." —
Deut. viz.

If these words had proceeded from the mouth of a
demon, if they had been spoken by some enraged and
infinitely malicious fiend, I should not have been sur
prised. But these things are attributed to a God
of infinite mercy.

40. ^f " So Joshua smote all the country of the hills,
and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs,
and all their kings ; he left none remaining, but
utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God
of Israel commanded." — Josh. x.

14. "And all the spoil of these cities, and the cattle,
the children of Israel took for a prey unto themselves ;
but every man they smote with the edge of the
sword until they had destroyed them, neither left
they any to breathe." — Josh. xi.

19. "There was not a city that made peace with
the children of Israel, save the Hivites, the inhabit
ants of Gibeon ; all other they took •! battle.

92 MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

20. " For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts
that they should come against Israel in battle, that he
might destroy them utterly, and that they might
have no favor, but that he might destroy them, as
the Lord commanded Moses." — Josh. xi.

There are no words in our language with which
to express the indignation I feel when reading these
cruel and heartless words.

" When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight
against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it
shall be if it make thee answer of peace, and open
unto thee, then it shall be that all the people therein
shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve
thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but
will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege
it. And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it
into thy hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof
with the sword. But the women, and the little ones,
and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even the
spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself, and thou
shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord
thy God hath given thee.

" Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are
very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of
these nations. But of the cities of these people
which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an

MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 93

inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that
breatheth."

These terrible instructions were given to an army
ofinvasion. The men who were thus ruthlessly mur
dered were fighting for their homes, their firesides,
for their wives and for their little children. Yet
these things, by the clergy of San Francisco, are
called acts of sublime mercy.

All this is justified by the doctrine of the survival
of the fittest. The Old Testament is filled with
anathemas, with curses, with words of vengeance, of
revenge, of jealousy, of hatred and of almost infinite
brutality. Do not, I pray you, pluck from the heart
the sweet flower of pity and trample it in the bloody
dust of superstition. Do not, I beseech you, justify
the murder of women, the assassination of dimpled
babes. Do not let the gaze of the gorgon of super
stition turn your hearts to stone.

Is there an intelligent Christian in the world who
would not with joy and gladness receive conclusive
testimony to the effect that all the passages in the
Bible upholding and sustaining polygamy and con
cubinage, political tyranny, the subjection of woman,
the enslavement of children, establishing domestic
and political tyranny, and that all the commands to
destroy men, women and children, are but interpola-

94 MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

tions of kings and priests, made for the purpose of
subjugating mankind through the instrumentality of
fear ? Is there a Christian in the world who would
not think vastly more of the Bible if all these in
famous things were eliminated from it?

Surely the good things in that book are not ren
dered more sacred from the fact that in the same
volume are found the frightful passages I have quot
ed. In my judgment the Bible should be read and
studied precisely as we read and study any book
whatever. The good in it should be preserved and
cherished, and that which shocks the human heart
should be cast aside forever.

While the Old Testament threatens men, women
and children with disease, famine, war, pestilence
and death, there are no threatenings of punishment
beyond this life. The doctrine of eternal punish
ment is a dogma of the New Testament. This
doctrine, the most cruel, the most infamous of which
the human mind can conceive, is taught, if taught at
all, in the Bible — in the New Testament. One can
not imagine what the human heart has suffered by
reason of the frightful doctrine of eternal damnation.
It is a doctrine so abhorrent to every drop of my
blood, so infinitely cruel, that it is impossible for me
to respect either the head or heart of any human

MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 95

being who teaches or fears it. This doctrine neces
sarily subverts all ideas of justice. To inflict infinite
punishment for finite crimes, or rather for crimes
committed by finite beings, is a proposition so
monstrous that I am astonished it ever found lodg
ment in the brain of man. Whoever says that we
can be happy in heaven while those we loved on
earth are suffering infinite torments in eternal fire,
defames and calumniates the human heart.

THE PLAN OF SALVATION.
XII.

WE are told, however, that a way has been
provided for the salvation of all men, and
that in this plan the infinite mercy of God is made
manifest to the children of men. According to the
great scheme of the atonement, the innocent suffers
for the guilty in order to satisfy a law. What kind of
law must it be that is satisfied with the agony of
innocence ? Who made this law ? If God made it
he must have known that the innocent would have
to suffer as a consequence. The whole scheme is to
me a medley of contradictions, impossibilities and
theological conclusions. We are told that if Adam
and Eve had not sinned in the Garden of Eden
death never would have entered the world. We
are further informed that had it not been for the
devil, Adam and Eve would not have been led
astray ; and if they had not, as I said before, death
never would have touched with its icy hand the

MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 97

human heart. If our first parents had never sinned,
and death never had entered the world, you and I
never would have existed. The earth would have
been filled thousands of generations before you and
I were born. At the feast of life, death made seats
vacant for us. According to this doctrine, we are
indebted to the devil for our existence. Had he not
tempted Eve — no sin. If there had been no sin —
no death. If there had been no death the world
would have been filled ages before you and I were
born. Therefore, we owe our existence to the devil.
We are further informed that as a consequence of
original sin the scheme called the atonement became
necessary ; and that if the Savior had not taken
upon himself flesh and come to this atom called the
earth, and if he had not been crucified for us, we
should all have been cast forever into hell. Had it
not been for the bigotry of the Jews and the treach
ery of Judas Iscariot, Christ would not have been
crucified ; and if he had not been crucified, all of us
would have had our portion in the lake that burneth
with eternal fire.

According to thi? great doctrine, according to this
vast and most wonderful scheme, we owe, as I said
before, our existence to the devil, our salvation to
Judas Iscariot and the bigotry of the Jews.

98 MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

So far as I am concerned, I fail to see any meicy
in the plan of salvation. Is it mercy to reward a
man forever in consideration of believing a certain
thing, of the truth of which there is, to his mind,
ample testimony ? Is it mercy to punish a man
with eternal fire simply because there is not testi
mony enough to satisfy his mind ? Can there be
such a thing as mercy in eternal punishment ?

And yet this same Deity says to me, " resist not
evil ; pray for those that despitefully use you ; love
your enemies, but I will eternally damn mine." It
seems to me that even gods should practice what
they preach.

Ail atonement, after all, is a kind of moral bank
ruptcy. Under its provisions, man is allowed the
luxury of sinning upon a credit. Whenever he is
guilty of a wicked action he says, " charge it." This
kind of bookkeeping, in my judgment, tends to
breed extravagance in sin.

The truth is, most Christians are better than their
creeds ; most creeds are better than the Bible, and
most men are better than their God.

OTHER RELIGIONS.

XIII.

WE must remember that ours is not the only re
ligion. Man has in all ages endeavored to
answer the great questions Whence ? and Whither ?
He has endeavored to read his destiny in the stars,
to pluck the secret of his existence from the night.
He has questioned the spectres of his own imagina
tion. He has explored the mysterious avenues of
dreams. He has peopled the heavens with spirits.
He has mistaken his visions for realities. In the
twilight of ignorance he has mistaken shadows for
gods. In all ages he has been the slave of misery,
the dupe of superstition and the fool of hope. He has
suffered and aspired.

Religion is a thing of growth, of development.
As we advance we throw aside the grosser and ab-
surder forms of faith — practically at first by ceasing
to observe them, and lastly, by denying them alto
gether. Every church necessarily by its constitution

(99)

IOO MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

endeavors to prevent this natural growth or devel
opment. What has happened to other religions
must happen to ours. Ours is not superior to many
that have passed, or are passing away. Other re
ligions have been lived for and died for by men as
noble as ours can boast. Their dogmas and doc
trines have, to say the least, been as reasonable, as
full of spiritual grandeur, as ours.

Man has had beautiful thoughts. Man has tried
to solve these questions in all the countries of the
world, and I respect all such men and women ; but
let me tell you one little thing. I want to show you
that in other countries there is something.

The Parsee sect of Persia say : A Persian saint
ascended the three stairs that lead to heaven's gate,
and knocked ; a voice said : " Who is there ? "
" Thy servant, O God ! " But the gates would not
open. For seven years he did every act of kind
ness ; again he came, and the voice said : " Who is
there?" And he replied: "Thy slave, O God!"
Yet the gates were shut. Yet seven other years of
kindness, and the man again knocked ; and the voice
cried and said : " Who is there ? " " Thyself, O
God ! " And the gates wide open flew.

I say there is no more beautiful Christian poem
than this.

MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED. IOI

A Persian after having read our religion, with its
frightful descriptions of perdition, wrote these words :
" Two angels flying out from the blissful city of God
— the angel of love and the angel of pity — hovered
over the eternal pit where suffered the captives of
hell. One smile of love illumined the darkness and
one tear of pity extinguished all the fires." Has
orthodoxy produced anything as generously beauti
ful as this ? Let me read you this : Sectarians, hear
this: Believers in eternal damnation, hear this:
Clergy of America who expect to have your happiness
in heaven increased by seeing me burning in hell, hear
this:

This is the prayer of the Brahmins — a prayer that
has trembled from human lips toward heaven for
more than four thousand years :

" Never will I seek or receive private individual
salvation. Never will I enter into final bliss alone.
But forever and everywhere will I labor and strive
for the final redemption of every creature throughout
all worlds, and until all are redeemed. Never will I
wrongly leave this world to sin, sorrow and strug
gle, but will remain and work and suffer where

In
am.

Has the orthodox religion produced a prayer like
this ? See the infinite charity, not only for every

IO2 MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

soul in this world, but of all the shining worlds of the
universe. Think of that, ye parsons who imagine
that a large majority are going to eternal ruin.

Compare it with the sermons of Jonathan Edwards,
and compare it with the imprecation of Christ :
" Depart ye cursed into everlasting fire prepared
for the devil and his angels ; " with the ideas of
Jeremy Taylor, with the creeds of Christendom, with
all the prayers of all the saints, and in no church
except the Universalist will you hear a prayer like
this.

" When thou art in doubt as to whether an action
is good or bad, abstain from it."

Since the days of Zoroaster has there been any
rule for human conduct given superior to this ?

Are the principles taught by us superior to those
of Confucius ? He was asked if there was any single
word comprising the duties of man. He replied :
" Reciprocity." Upon being asked what he thought
of the doctrine of returning benefits for injuries, he
replied : " That is not my doctrine. If you return
benefits for injuries what do you propose for benefits ?
My doctrine is ; For benefits return benefits ; for
injuries return justice without any admixture of re
venge."

To return good for evil is to pay a premium upon

MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 10$

wickedness. I cannot put a man under obligation to
do me a favor by doing him an injury.

Now, to-day, right now, what is the church do
ing ? What is it doing, I ask you honestly ? Does it
satisfy the craving hearts of the nineteenth century ?
Are we satisfied ? I am not saying this except from
the honesty of my heart. Are we satisfied ? Is it
a consolation to us now ? Is it even a consolation
when those we love die ? The dead are so near and
the promises are so far away. It is covered with
the rubbish of the past. I ask you, is it all that is
demanded by the brain and heart of the nineteenth
century ?

We want something better ; we want something
grander ; we want something that has more brain
in it, and more heart in it. We want to advance
— that is what we want ; and you cannot advance
without being a heretic — you cannot do it.

Nearly all these religions have been upheld by
persecution and bloodshed. They have been ren
dered stable by putting fetters upon the human
brain. They have all, however, been perfectly
natural productions, and under similar circumstances
would all be reproduced. Only by intellectual
development are the old superstitions outgrown.
As only the few intellectually advance, the majority

104 MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

is left on the side of superstition, and remains
there until the advanced ideas of the few thinkers
become general ; and by that time there are other
thinkers still in advance.

And so the work of development and growth
slowly and painfully proceeds from age to age. The
pioneers are denounced as heretics, and the heretics
denounce their denouncers as the disciples of super
stition and ignorance. Christ was a heretic. Herod

o

was orthodox. Socrates was a blasphemer. Anytus
worshiped all the gods. Luther was a skeptic, while
the sellers of indulgences were the best of Catholics.
Roger Williams was a heretic, while the Puritans
who drove him from Massachusetts were all ortho
dox. Every step in advance in the religious history
of the world has been taken by heretics. No super
stition has been destroyed except by a heretic. No
creed has been bettered except by a heretic.
Heretic is the name that the orthodox laggard hurls
at the disappearing pioneer. It is shouted by the
dwellers in swamps to the people upon the hills. It
is the opinion that midnight entertains of the dawn.
It is what the rotting says of the growing. Heretic
is the name that a stench gives to a perfume.

With this word the coffin salutes the cradle. It
is taken from the lips of the dead. Orthodoxy is a

MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED. IO5

shroud — heresy is a banner. Orthodoxy is an
epitaph — heresy is a prophecy. Orthodoxy is a
cloud, a fog, a mist — heresy the star shining forever
above the child of truth.

I am a believer in the eternity of progress. I do
not believe that Want will forever extend its
withered hand, its wan and shriveled palms, for
charity. I do not believe that the children will
forever be governed by cruelty and brute force. I
do not believe that poverty will dwell with man
forever. I do not believe that prisons will forever
cover the earth, or that the shadow of the gallows
will forever fall upon the ground. I do not believe
that injustice will sit forever upon the bench, or that
malice and superstition will forever stand in the
pulpit.

I believe the time will come when there will be
charity in every heart, when there will be love in
every family, and when law and liberty and justice,
like the atmosphere, will surround this world.

We have worshiped the ghosts long enough.
We have prostrated ourselves before the ignorance
of the past.

Let us stand erect and look with hopeful eyes
toward the brightening future. Let us stand by our
convictions. Let us not throw away our idea of

106 MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

justice for the sake of any book or of any religion
whatever. Let us live according to our highest
and noblest and purest ideal.

By this time we should know that the real Bible
has not been written.

The real Bible is not the work of inspired men,
or prophets, or apostles, or evangelists, or of
Christs.

Every man who finds a fact, adds, as it were,
a word to this great book. It is not attested
by prophecy, by miracles, or signs. It makes no ap
peal to faith, to ignorance, to credulity or fear. It
has no punishment for unbelief, and no reward for
hypocrisy. It appeals to man in the name of de
monstration. It has nothing to conceal. It has
no fear of being read, of being contradicted, of being
investigated and understood. It does not pretend
to be holy, or sacred ; it simply claims to be true. It
challenges the scrutiny of all, and implores every
reader to verify every line for himself. It is incap
able of being blasphemed. This book appeals to all
the surroundings of man. Each thing that exists
testifies to its perfection. The earth, with its heart
of fire and crowns of snow ; with its forests and
plains, its rocks and seas ; with its every wave and
cloud ; with its every leaf and bud and flower, con-

MY REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 1 07

firms its every word, and the solemn stars, shining
in the infinite abysses, are the eternal witnesses of
its truth.

Ladies and gentlemen you cannot tell how I thank
you this evening ; you cannot tell how I feel toward
the intellectual hospitality of this great city by the
Pacific sea. Ladies and gentlemen, I thank you — I
thank you again and again, a thousand times.

MY CHICAGO BIBLE CLASS.

MY CHICAGO BIBLE CLASS.*

To the Editor : —

NOTHING is more gratifying than to see ideas
that were received with scorn, flourishing in
the sunshine of approval. Only a few weeks ago, I
stated that the Bible was not inspired ; that Moses
was mistaken ; that the " flood " was a foolish myth ;
that the Tower of Babel existed only in credulity ;
that God did not create the universe from nothing,
that he did not start the first woman with a rib ; that ,
he never upheld slavery ; that he was not a polyga-
mist ; that he did not kill people for making hair-
oil ; that he did not order his generals to kill
the dimpled babes ; that he did not allow the roses
of love and the violets of modesty to be trodden un
der the brutal feet of lust ; that the Hebrew lan
guage was written without vowels ; that the Bible
was composed of many books, written by unknown
men ; that all translations differed from each other ;
and that this book had filled the world with agony
and crime.

At that time I had not the remotest idea that the

* Chicago Times, 1879. (Ill)

112 MY CHICAGO BIBLE CLASS.

most learned clergymen in Chicago would substanti
ally agree with me — in public. I have read the re
plies of the Rev. Robert Collyer, Dr. Thomas, Rabbi
Kohler, Rev. Brooke Herford, Prof. Swing and Dr.
Ryder, and will now ask them a few questions, an
swering them in their own words.

First. Rev. Robert Collyer.

Question. What is your opinion of the Bible ?

Answer. " It is a splendid book. It makes the
noblest type of Catholics and the meanest bigots.
Through this book men give their hearts for good to
God, or for evil to the devil. The best argument for
the intrinsic greatness of the book is that it can touch
such wide extremes, and seem to maintain us in
the most unparalleled cruelty, as well as the most
tender mercy ; that it can inspire purity like that of
the great saints, and afford arguments in favor of
polygamy. The Bible is the text book of ironclad
Calvinism and sunny Universalism. It makes the
Quaker quiet, and the Millerite crazy. It inspired
the Union soldier to live and grandly die for the
right, and Stonewall Jackson to live nobly, and die
grandly for the wrong."

Question. But, Mr. Collyer, do you really think
that a book with as many passages in favor of wrong
as right, is inspired?

MY CHICAGO BIBLE CLASS. 113

Answer. " I look upon the Old Testament as a
rotting tree. When it falls it will fertilize a bank
of violets."

Question. Do you believe that God upheld slavery
and polygamy ? Do you believe that he ordered
the killing of babes and the violation of maidens ?

Answer. " There is threefold inspiration in the
Bible, the first, peerless and perfect, the word of God
to man ; the second, simply and purely human, and
then below this again, there is an inspiration born of
an evil heart, ruthless and savage there and then as
anything well can be. A threefold inspiration, of
heaven first, then of the earth, and then of hell, all
in the same book, all sometimes in the same chapter,
and then, besides, a great many things that need no
inspiration."

Question. Then after all you do not pretend that
the Scriptures are really inspired ?

Answer. " The Scriptures make no such claim for
themselves as the church makes for them. They
leave me free to say this is false, or this is true.
The truth even within the Bible, dies and lives, makes
on this side and loses on that."

Question. What do you say to the last verse in
the Bible, where a curse is threatened to any man
who takes from or adds to the book ?

114 MY CHICAGO BIBLE CLASS.

Answer. " I have but one answer to this question,
and it is : Let who will have written this, I cannot
for an instant believe that it was written by a divine
inspiration. Such dogmas and threats as these are
not of God, but of man, and not of any man of a
free spirit and heart eager for the truth, but a narrow
man who would cripple and confine the human soul
in its quest after the whole truth of God, and back
those who have done the shameful things in the name
of the most high."

Question. Do you not regard such talk as " slang " ?

{Supposed) Answer. If an infidel had said that the
writer of Revelation was narrow and bigoted, I
might have denounced his discourse as " slang," but
I think that Unitarian ministers can do so with the
greatest propriety.

Question. Do you believe in the stories of the
Bible, about Jael, and the sun standing still, and the
walls falling at the blowing of horns ?

Answer. " They may be legends, myths, poems,
or what they will, but they are not the word of God.
So I say again, it was not the God and Father
of us all, who inspired the woman to drive that
nail crashing through the king's temple after she
had given him that bowl of milk and bid him sleep in
safety, but a very mean devil of hatred and revenge,

MY CHICAGO BIBLE CLASS.

that I should hardly expect to find in a squaw on
the plains. It was not the ram's horns and the
shouting before which the walls fell flat. If they
went down at all, it was through good solid pounding.
And not for an instant did the steady sun stand
still or let his planet stand still while barbarian
fought barbarian. He kept just the time then he
keeps now. They might believe it who made the
record. I do not. And since the whole Christian
world might believe it, still we do not who gather in
this church. A free and reasonable mind stands
right in our way. Newton might believe it as a
Christian, and disbelieve it as a philosopher. We
stand then with the philosopher against the Christian,
for we must believe what is true to us in the last
test, and these things are not true."

Second. Rev. Dr. Thomas.

Question. What is your opinion of the Old Tes
tament ?

Answer. " My opinion is that it is not one book,
but many — thirty-nine books bound up in one. The
date and authorship of most of these books are
wholly unknown. The Hebrews wrote without
vowels, and without dividing the letters into syllables,
words, or sentences. The books were gathered up
by Ezra. At that time only two of the Jewish tribes

Il6 MY CHICAGO BIBLE CLASS.

remained. All progress has ceased. In gathering
up the sacred book, copyists exercised great liberty
in making changes and additions."

Question. Yes, we know all that, but is the Old
Testament inspired ?

Answer. "There maybe the inspiration of art,
of poetry, or oratory ; of patriotism — and there are
such inspirations. There are moments when great
truths and principles come to men. They seek the
man, and not the man them."

Question. Yes, we all admit that, but is the Bible
inspired ?

Answer. " But still I know of no way to convince
anyone of spirit, and inspiration, and God, only as his
reason may take hold of these things."

Question. Do you think the Old Testament
true?

Answer. " The story of Eden may be an allegory.
The history of the children of Israel may have
mistakes."

Question. Must inspiration claim infallibility ?

Answer. " It is a mistake to say that if you believe
one part of the Bible you must believe all. Some
of the thirty-nine books may be inspired, others
not ; or there may be degrees of inspiration."

Question. Do you believe that God commanded

MY CHICAGO BIBLE CLASS. 117

the soldiers to kill the children and the married
women, and save for themselves, the maidens, as
recorded in Numbers xxxi, 2 ?

Do you believe that God upheld slavery ?

Do you believe that God upheld polygamy ?

Answer. " The Bible may be wrong in some state
ments. God and right cannot be wrong. We must
not exalt the Bible above God. It may be that
we have claimed too much for the Bible, and thereby
given not a little occasion for such men as Mr.
Ingersoll to appear at the other extreme, denying
too much."

Question, What then shall be done ?

Answer. " We must take a middle ground. It is
not necessary to believe that the bears devoured the
forty-two children, nor that Jonah was swallowed by
the whale."

Third. Rev. Dr. Kohler.

Question. What is your opinion about the Old
Testament ?

Answer. " I will not make futile attempts of arti
ficially interpreting the letter of the Bible so as to
make it reflect the philosophical, moral and scientific
views of our time. The Bible is a sacred record of
humanity's childhood."

Question. Are you an orthodox Christian ?

Il8 MY CHICAGO BIBLE CLASS.

Answer. " No. Orthodoxy, with its face turned
backward to a ruined temple or a dead Messiah, is
fast becoming like Lot's wife, a pillar of salt."

Question. Do you really believe the Old Testa
ment was inspired ?

Answer. " I greatly acknowledge our indebtedness
to men like Voltaire and Thomas Paine, whose bold
denial and cutting wit were so instrumental in
bringing about this glorious era of freedom, so con
genial and blissful, particularly to the long-abused
Jewish race."

Question. Do you believe in the inspiration of
the Bible ?

Answer. " Of course there is a destructive axe
needed to strike down the old building in order to
make room for the grander new. The divine origin
claimed by the Hebrews for their national literature,
was claimed by all nations for their old records and
laws as preserved by the priesthood. As Moses, the
Hebrew law-giver, is represented as having received
the law from God on the holy mountain, so is Zoro
aster the Persian, Manu the Hindoo, Minos the
Cretan, Lycurgus the Spartan, and Numa the
Roman."

Question. Do you believe all the stories in the
Bible?

MY CHICAGO BIBLE CLASS. IIQ

Answer. "All that can and must be said against
them is that they have been too long retained
around the arms and limbs of grown-up man
hood, to check the spiritual progress of religion ;
that by Jewish ritualism and Christian dogmatism
they became fetters unto the soul, turning the
light of heaven into a misty haze to blind the eye,
and even into a hell- fire of fanaticism to consume
souls."

Question. Is the Bible inspired?

Answer. " True, the Bible is not free from errors,
nor is any work of man and time. It abounds in
childish views and offensive matter. I trust that it
will in a time not far off be presented for common
use in families, schools, synagogues and churches, in
a refined shape, cleansed from all dross and chaff,
and stumbling blocks in which the scoffer delights
to dwell."

Fourth. Rev. Mr. Herford.

Question. Is the Bible true ?

Answer. " Ingersoll is very fond of saying 'The
question is not, is the Bible inspired, but is it true ? '
That sounds very plausible, but you know as applied
to any ancient book it is simply nonsense."

Question. Do you think the stories in the Bible
exaggerated ?

I2O MY CHICAGO BIBLE CLASS.

Answer. " I dare say the numbers are immensely
exaggerated."

Question. Do you think that God upheld polyg
amy ?

Answer. " The truth of which simply is, that four
thousand years ago polygamy existed among the
Jews, as everywhere else on earth then, and even
their prophets did not come to the idea of its being
wrong. But what is there to be indignant about in
that?"

Question. And so you really wonder why any
man should be indignant at the idea that God up
held and sanctioned that beastliness called polyg
amy ?

Answer. " What is there to be indignant about in
that ? "

Fifth. Prof. Swing.

Question. What is your idea of the Bible ?

Answer. " I think it is a poem."

Sixth. Rev. Dr. Ryder.

Question. And what is your idea of the sacred
Scriptures ?

Answer. " Like other nations, the Hebrews had
their patriotic, descriptive, didactic and lyrical poems
in the same varieties as other nations ; but with
them, unlike other nations, whatever may be the form

MY CHICAGO BIBLE CLASS. 121

of their poetry, it always possesses the charactej istic
of religion."

Question. I suppose you fully appreciate the
religious characteristics of the Song of Solomon.

No answer.

Question. Does the Bible uphold polygamy ?

Answer. " The law of Moses did not forbid it, but
contained many provisions against its worst abuses,
and such as were intended to restrict it within nar
row limits."

Question. So you think God corrected some of
the worst abuses of polygamy, but preserved the
institution itself?

I might question many others, but have concluded
not to consider those as members of my Bible Class
who deal in calumnies and epithets. From the so-
called " replies " of such ministers, it appears that
while Christianity changes the heart, it does not im
prove the manners, and that one can get into heaven
in the next world without having been a gentleman
in this.

It is difficult for me to express the deep and
thrilling satisfaction I have experienced in reading
the admissions of the clergy of Chicago. Surely,
the battle of intellectual liberty is almost won, when
ministers admit that the Bible is filled with ignorant

122 MY CHICAGO BIBLE CLASS.

and cruel mistakes ; that each man has the right to
think for himself, and that it is not necessary to be
lieve the Scriptures in order to be saved. From the
bottom of my heart I congratulate my pupils on the
advance they have made, and hope soon to meet
them on the serene heights of perfect freedom.

ROBERT G. INGERSOLL.
Washington, D. C., May 7,

TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY.

To THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY.*

THE following questions have been submitted to
me by the Rev. David Walk, Dr. T. B. Taylor,
the Rev. Myron W. Reed, and the Rev. D. O'Don-
aghue, of Indianapolis, with the request that I answer
them :

I.

Question. Is the Character of Jesus of Nazareth,
as described in the Four Gospels, Fictional or Real?
— REV. DAVID WALK.

Answer. In all probability, there was a man by the
name of Jesus Christ, who was,in his day and genera
tion, a reformer — a man who was infinitely shocked
at the religion of Jehovah — who became almost in
sane with pity as he contemplated the sufferings of
the weak, the poor, and the ignorant at the hands
of an intolerant, cruel, hypocritical, and bloodthirsty
church. It is no wonder that such a man predicted
the downfall of the temple. In all probability, he

* The Iconvcfast, Indianapolis, Indiana. 1883. (135)

126 REPLY TO THE INDIANAPOLIS' CLERGY.

hated, at last, every pillar and stone in it, and de
spised even the " Holy of Holies." This man, of
course, like other men, grew. He did not die with
the opinion he held in his youth. He changed his
views from time to time — fanned the spark of reason
into a flame, and as he grew older his horizon ex
tended and widened, and he became gradually a
wiser, greater, and better man.

I find two or three Christs described in the four
Gospels. In some portions you would imagine that
he was an exceedingly pious Jew. When he says
that people must not swear by Jerusalem, because
it is God's holy city, certainly no Pharisee could have
gone beyond that expression. So, too, when it is
recorded that he drove the money changers from the
temple. This, had it happened, would have been
the act simply of one who had respect for this temple
and not for the religion taught in it.

It would seem that, at first, Christ believed sub
stantially in the religion of his time ; that after
ward, seeing its faults, he wished to reform it ; and
finally, comprehending it in all its enormity, he de
voted his life to its destruction. This view shows
that he " increased in stature and grew in knowl
edge."

This view is also supported by the fact that, at

REPLY TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY. 127

first, according to the account, Christ distinctly stated
that his gospel was not for the Gentiles. At that time
he had altogether more patriotism than philosophy.
In my own opinion, he was driven to like the Gen
tiles by the persecution he endured at home. He
found, as every Freethinker now finds, that there
are many saints not in churches and many devils not
out.

The character of Christ, in many particulars, as
described in the Gospels, depends upon who wrote
the Gospels. Each one endeavored to make a Christ
to suit himself. So that Christ, after all, is a growth ;
and since the Gospels were finished, millions of men
have been adding to and changing the character of
Christ.

There is another thing that should not be forgotten,
and that is that the Gospels were not written until
after the Epistles. I take it for granted that Paul
never saw any of the Gospels, for the reason that he
quotes none of them. There is also this remarkable
fact : Paul quotes none of the miracles of the New
Testament. He says not one word about the mul
titude being fed miraculously, not one word about
the resurrection of Lazarus, nor of the widow's son.
He had never heard of the lame, the halt, and the
blind that had been cured ; or if he had, he did not

128 REPLY TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY.

think these incidents of enough importance to be em
balmed in an epistle.

So we find that none of the early fathers ever
quoted from the four Gospels. Nothing can be more
certain than that the four Gospels were not written
until after the Epistles, and nothing can be more
certain than that the early Christians knew nothing
of what we call the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke,
and John. All these things have been growths. At
first it was believed that Christ was a direct descend
ant from David. At that time the disciples of Christ,
of course, were Jews. The Messiah was expected
through the blood of David. — For that reason, the
genealogy of Joseph, a descendant of David, was
given. It was not until long after, that the idea
came into the minds of Christians that Christ was the
son of the Holy Ghost. If they, at the time the
genealogy was given, believed that Christ was in
fact the son of the Holy Ghost, why did they give
the genealogy of Joseph to show that Christ was re
lated to David ? In other words, why should the
son of God attempt to get glory out of the fact that
he had in his veins the blood of a barbarian king ?
There is only one answer to this. The Jews ex
pected the Messiah through David, and in order to
prove that Christ was the Messiah, they gave the

REPLY TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY. 129

genealogy of Joseph. Afterward, the idea became
popularized that Christ was the son of God, and then
were interpolated the words " as was supposed" in
the genealogy of Christ. It was a long time before
the disciples became great enough to include the
world in their scheme, and before they thought it
proper to tell the " glad tidings of great joy " be
yond the limits of Judea.

My own opinion is that the man called Christ
lived ; but whether he lived in Palestine, or not, is
of no importance. His life is worth its example,
its moral force, its benevolence, its self-denial and
heroism. It is of no earthly importance whether he
changed water into wine or not. All his miracles
are simply dust and darkness compared with what
he actually said and actually did. We should be
kind to each other whether Lazarus was raised or
not. We should be just and forgiving whether
Christ lived or not. All the miracles in the world
are of no use to virtue, morality, or justice. Mir
acles belong to superstition, to ignorance, to fear
and folly.

Neither does it make any difference who wrote the
Gospels. They are worth the truth that is in them
and no more.

The words of Paul are often quoted, that " all

I3O REPLY TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY.

scripture is given by inspiration of God." Of course
that could not have applied to anything written after
that time. It could have applied only to the Scrip
tures then written and then known. It is perfectly
clear that the four Gospels were not at that time
written, and therefore this statement of Paul's does
not apply to the four Gospels. Neither does it apply
to anything written after that statement was written.
Neither does it apply to that statement. If it ap
plied to anything it was the Old Testament, and not
the New.

Christ has been belittled by his worshipers. When
stripped of the miraculous ; when allowed to be, not
divine but divinely human, he will have gained a
thousandfold in the estimation of mankind. I think
of him as I do of Buddha, as I do of Confucius, of
Epictetus, of Bruno. I place him with the great, the
generous, the self-denying of the earth, and for the
man Christ, I feel only admiration and respect. I
think he was in many things mistaken. His reliance
upon the goodness of God was perfect. He seemed
to believe that his father in heaven would protect
him. He thought that if God clothed the lilies of
the field in beauty, if he provided for the sparrows,
he would surely protect a perfectly just and loving
man. In this he was mistaken ; and in the darkness

REPLY TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY.

of death, overwhelmed, he cried out : " Why hast
thou forsaken me ?"

I do not believe that Christ ever claimed to be
divine ; ever claimed to be inspired ; ever claimed
to work a miracle. In short, I believe that he was
an honest man. These claims were all put in his
mouth by others — by mistaken friends, by ignorant
worshipers, by zealous and credulous followers, and
sometimes by dishonest and designing priests. This
has happened to all the great men of the world.
All historical characters are, in part, deformed or
reformed by fiction. There was a man by the
name of George Washington, but no such George
Washington ever existed as we find portrayed in
history. The historical Caesar never lived. The
historical Mohammed is simply a myth. It is the
task of modern criticism to rescue these characters,
and in the mass of superstitious rubbish to find the
actual man. Christians borrowed the old clothes of
the Olympian gods and gave them to Christ. To
me, Christ the man is far greater than Christ the
god.

To me, it has always been a matter of wonder that
Christ said nothing as to the obligation man is under
to his country, nothing as to the rights of the people
as against the wish and will of kings, nothing

132 REPLY TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY.

against the frightful system of human slavery — almost
universal in his time. What he did not say is alto
gether more wonderful than what he did say. It is
marvelous that he said nothing upon the subject of
intemperance, nothing about education, nothing about
philosophy, nothing about nature, nothing about art.
He said nothing in favor of the home, except to offer
a reward to those who would desert their wives and
families. Of course, I do not believe that he said
the words that were attributed to him, in which a re
ward is offered to any man who will desert his
kindred. But if we take the account given in the
four Gospels as the true account, then Christ did
offer a reward to a father who would desert his chil
dren. It has always been contended that he was a
perfect example of mankind, and yet he never mar
ried. As a result of what he did not teach in con
nection with what he did teach, his followers saw no
harm in slavery, no harm in polygamy. They be
littled this world and exaggerated the importance of
the next. They consoled the slave by telling him
that in a little while he would exchange his chains
for wings. They comforted the captive by saying
that in a few days he would leave his dungeon for
the bowers of Paradise. His followers believed that
he had said that " Whosoever believeth not shall

REPLY TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY. 133

be damned." This passage was the cross upon which
intellectual liberty was crucified.

If Christ had given us the laws of health ; if he
had told us how to cure disease by natural means ;
if he had set the captive free ; if he had crowned
the people with their rightful power ; if he had
placed the home above the church ; if he had broken
all the mental chains ; if he had flooded all the caves
and dens of fear with light, and filled the future
with a common joy, he would in truth have been
the Savior of this world.

Question. How do you account for the differ
ence between the Christian and other modern
civilizations ?

Answer. I account for the difference between
men by the difference in their ancestry and surround
ings — the difference in soil, climate, food, and em
ployment. There would be no civilization in Eng
land were it not for the Gulf Stream. There would
have been very little here had it not been for the
discovery of Columbus. And even now on this con
tinent there would be but little civilization had the
soil been poor. I might ask : How do you account
for the civilization of Egypt ? At one time that was
the greatest civilization in the world. Did that fact
prove that the Egyptian religion was of divine

134 REPLY TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY.

origin ? So, too, there was a time when the civiliza
tion of India was beyond all others. Does that
prove that Vishnu was a God ? Greece dominated
the intellectual world for centuries. Does that fact
absolutely prove that Zeus was the creator of
heaven and earth ? The same may be said of Rome.
There was a time when Rome governed the world,
and yet I have always had my doubts as to the truth
of the Roman mythology. As a matter of fact,
Rome was far better than any Christian nation ever
was to the end of the seventeenth century. A
thousand years of Christian rule produced no fellow
for the greatest of Rome. There were no poets the
equals of Horace or Virgil, no philosophers as great
as Lucretius, no orators like Cicero, no emperors
like Marcus Aurelius, no women like the mothers
of Rome.

The civilization of a country may be hindered by
a religion, but it has never been increased by any
form of superstition. When America was discover
ed it had the same effect upon Europe that it
would have, for instance, upon the city of Chicago
to have Lake Michigan put the other side of it.
The Mediterranean lost its trade. The centers of
commerce became deserted. The prow of the world
turned westward, and, as a result, France, England,

REPLY TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY. 135

and all countries bordering on the Atlantic became
prosperous. The world has really been civilized by
discoverers — by thinkers. The man who invented
powder, and by that means released hundreds of
thousands of men from the occupations of war, did
more for mankind than religion. The inventor of
paper — and he was not a Christian — did more than
all the early fathers for mankind. The inventors of
plows, of sickles, of cradles, of reapers ; the invent
ors of wagons, coaches, locomotives ; the inventors
of skiffs, sail-vessels, steamships ; the men who have
made looms — in short, the inventors of all useful
things — they are the civilizers taken in connection
with the great thinkers, the poets, the musicians,
the actors, the painters, the sculptors. The men
who have invented the useful, and the men who
have made the useful beautiful, are the real civil
izers of mankind.

The priests, in all ages, have been hindrances —
stumbling-blocks. They have prevented man from
using his reason. They have told ghost stories to
courage until courage became fear. They have
done all in their power to keep men from growing
intellectually, to keep the world in a state of child
hood, that they themselves might be deemed great
and good and wise. They have always known that

136 REPLY TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY.

their reputation for wisdom depended upon the
ignorance of the people.

I account for the civilization of France by such
men as Voltaire. He did good by assisting to de
stroy the church. Luther did good exactly in the
same way. He did harm in building another church.
I account, in part, for the civilization of England by
the fact that she had interests greater than the church
could control ; and by the further fact that her
greatest men cared nothing for the church. I ac
count in part for the civilization of America by the
fact that our fathers were wise enough, and jealous
of each other enough, to absolutely divorce church
and state. They regarded the church as a danger
ous mistress — one not fit to govern a president.
This divorce was obtained because men like Jeffer
son and Paine were at that time prominent in the
councils of the people. There is this peculiarity in
our country — the only men who can be trusted with
human liberty are the ones who are not to be angels
hereafter. Liberty is safe so long as the sinners
have an opportunity to be heard.

Neither must we imagine that our civilization is
the only one in the world. They had no locks and
keys in Japan until that country was visited by
Christians, and they are now used only in those

REPLY TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY. 137

ports where Christians are allowed to enter. It
has often been claimed that there is but one way
to make a man temperate, and that is by making
him a Christian ; and this is claimed in face of the
fact that Christian nations are the most intem
perate in the world. For nearly thirteen centuries
the followers of Mohammed have been absolute
teetotalers — not one drunkard under the flag of the
star and crescent. Wherever, in Turkey, a man is
seen under the influence of liquor, they call him a
Christian. You must also remember that almost
every Christian nation has held slaves. Only a few
years ago England was engaged in the slave trade.
A little while before that our Puritan ancestors
sold white Quaker children in the Barbadoes, and
traded them for rum, sugar, and negro slaves. Even
now the latest champion of Christianity upholds
slavery, polygamy, and wars of extermination.

Sometimes I suspect that our own civilization is
not altogether perfect. When I think of the peni
tentiaries crammed to suffocation, and of the many
who ought to be in ; of the want, the filth, the de
pravity of the great cities ; of the starvation in the
manufacturing centers of Great Britain, and, in fact,
of all Europe ; when I see women working like
beasts of burden, and little children deprived, not

138 REPLY TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY.

simply of education, but of air, light and food, there
is a suspicion in my mind that Christian civilization
is not a complete and overwhelming success.

After all, I am compelled to account for the ad
vance that we have made, by the discoveries and
inventions of men of genius. For the future I rely
upon the sciences ; upon the cultivation of the in
tellect. I rely upon labor ; upon human interests
in this world ; upon the love of wife and children
and home. I do not rely upon sacred books, but
upon good men and women. I do not rely upon
superstition, but upon knowledge ; not upon mira
cles, but upon facts ; not upon the dead, but upon
the living ; and when we become absolutely civilized,
we shall look back upon the superstitions of the
world, not simply with contempt, but with pity.

Neither do I rely upon missionaries to convert
those whom we are pleased to call " the heathen."
Honest commerce is the great civilizer. We ex
change ideas when we exchange fabrics. The effort
to force a religion upon the people always ends in
war. Commerce, founded upon mutual advantage,
makes peace. An honest merchant is better than a
missionary.

Spain was blessed with what is called Christian
civilization, and yet, for hundreds of years, that

REPLY TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY. 139

government was simply an organized crime. When
one pronounces the name of Spain, he thinks of the
invasion of the New World, the persecution in the
Netherlands, the expulsion of the Jews, and the
Inquisition. Even to-day, the Christian nations of
Europe preserve themselves from each other by
bayonet and ball. Prussia has a standing army of
six hundred thousand men, France a half million,
and all their neighbors a like proportion. These
countries are civilized. They are in the enjoyment
of Christian governments — have their hundreds of
thousands of ministers, and the land covered with
cathedrals and churches — and yet every nation is
nearly beggared by keeping armies in the field.
Christian kings have no confidence in the promises
of each other. What they call peace is the little
time necessarily spent in reloading their guns.
England has hundreds of ships of war to protect
her commerce from other Christians, and to force
China to open her ports to the opium trade. Only
the other day the Prime Minister of China, in one
of his dispatches to the English government, used
substantially the following language : " England
regards the opium question simply as one of trade,
but to China, it has a moral aspect." Think of
Christian England carrying death and desolation to

I4O REPLY TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY.

hundreds of thousands in the name of trade. Then
think of heathen China protesting in the name of
morality. At the same time England has the im
pudence to send missionaries to China.

What has been called Christianity has been a
disturber of the public peace in all countries and at
all times. Nothing has so alienated nations, nothing
has so destroyed the natural justice of mankind, as
what has been known as religion. The idea that all
men must worship the same God, believe the same
dogmas, has for thousands of years plucked with
bloody hands the flower of pity from the human
heart.

Our civilization is not Christian. It does not come
from the skies. It is not a result of " inspiration."
It is the child of invention, of discovery, of applied
knowledge — that is to say, of science. When man
becomes great and grand enough to admit that all
have equal rights ; when thought is untrammeled ;
when worship shall consist in doing useful things ;
when religion means the discharge of obligations to
our fellow-men, then, and not until then, will the
world be civilized.

II.

Question. Since Laplace and other most distin
guished astronomers hold to the theory that the
earth was originally in a gaseous state, and then a
molten mass in which the germs, even, of vegetable
or animal life, could not exist, how do you account
for the origin of life on this planet without a " Cre
ator " ?— DR. T. B. TAYLOR.

Answer. Whether or not " the earth was origin
ally in a gaseous state and afterwards a molten mass
in which the germs of vegetable and animal life
could not exist," I do not know. My belief is that
the earth as it is, and as it was, taken in connection
with the influence of the sun, and of other planets,
produced whatever has existed or does exist on the
earth. I do not see why gas would not need a
" creator " as much as a vegetable. Neither can I im
agine that there is any more necessity for some one
to start life than to start a molten mass. There may
be now portions of the world in which there is not

(141)

142 REPLY TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY.

one particle of vegetable life. It may be that on the
wide waste fields of the Arctic zone there are places
where no vegetable life exists, and there may be
many thousand miles where no animal life can be
found. But if the poles of the earth could be changed,
and if the Arctic zone could be placed in a different
relative position to the sun, the snows would melt,
the hills would appear, and in a little while even the
rocks would be clothed with vegetation. After a
time vegetation would produce mpre soil, and in a
few thousand years forests would be filled with
beasts and birds.

I think it was Sir William Thomson who, in his
effort to account for the origin of life upon this earth,
stated that it might have come from some meteoric
stone falling from some other planet having in it the
germs of life. What would you think of a farmer
who would prepare his land and wait to have it
planted by meteoric stones? So, what would you
think of a Deity who would make a world like this,
and allow it to whirl thousands and millions of years,
barren as a gravestone, waiting for some vagrant
comet to sow the seeds of life ?

I believe that back of animal life is the vegetable,
and back of the vegetable, it may be, is the mineral.
It may be that crystallization is the first step toward

REPLY TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY. 143

what we call life, and yet I believe life is back of
that. In my judgment, if the earth ever was in a
gaseous state, it was filled with life. These are sub
jects about which we know but little. How do you
account for chemistry ? How do you account for
the fact that just so many particles of one kind seek
the society of just so many particles of another, and
when they meet they instantly form a glad and last
ing union ? How do you know but atoms have
love and hatred ? How do you know that the vege
table does not enjoy growing, and that crystallization
itself is not an expression of delight? How do you
know that a vine bursting into flower does not feel
a thrill ? We find sex in the meanest weeds — how
can you say they have no loves ?

After all, of what use is it to search for a creator ?
The difficulty is not thus solved. You leave your
creator as much in need of a creator as anything
your creator is supposed to have created. The bot
tom of your stairs rests on nothing, and the top of
your stairs leans upon nothing. You have reached
no solution.

The word " God " is simply born of our ignorance.
We go as far as we can, and we say the rest of the
way is " God." We look as far as we can, and be
yond the horizon, where there is nought so far as we

144 REPLY TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY.

know but blindness, we place our Deity. We see
an infinitesimal segment of a circle, and we say the
rest is " God."

Man must give up searching for the origin of
anything. No one knows the origin of life, or of
matter, or of what we call mind. The whence and
the whither are questions that no man can answer.
In the presence of these questions all intellects are
upon a level. The barbarian knows exactly the
same as the scientist, the fool as the philosopher.
Only those who think that they have had some
supernatural information pretend to answer these
questions, and the unknowable, the impossible, the
unfathomable, is the realm wholly occupied by the
"inspired."

We are satisfied that all organized things must
have had a beginning, but we cannot conceive that
matter commenced to be. Forms change, but sub
stance remains eternally the same. A beginning of
substance is unthinkable. It is just as easy to con
ceive of anything commencing to exist without a cause
as with a cause. There must be something for cause
to operate upon. Cause operating upon nothing —
were such a thing possible — would produce nothing.
There can be no relation between cause and nothing.
We can understand how things can be arranged —

REPLY TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY. 145

joined or separated — and how relations can be
changed or destroyed, but we cannot conceive of
creation — of nothing being changed into something,
nor of something being made — except from pre
existing materials.

Question. Since the universal testimony of the
ages is in the affirmative of phenomena that attest
the continued existence of man after death — which
testimony is overwhelmingly sustained by the phe
nomena of the nineteenth century — what further
evidence should thoughtful people require in order
to settle the question, " Does death end all ? "

Answer. I admit that in all ages men have be
lieved in spooks and ghosts and signs and wonders.
This, however, proves nothing. Men have for thou
sands of ages believed the impossible, and worshiped
the absurd. Our ancestors have worshiped snakes
and birds and beasts. I do not admit that any ghost
ever existed. I know that no miracle was ever
performed except in imagination ; and what you are
pleased to call the " phenomena of the nineteenth
century," I fear are on an exact equality with the
phenomena of the Dark Ages.

We do not yet understand the action of the brain.
No one knows the origin of a thought. No one
knows how he thinks, or why he thinks, any more

146 REPLY TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY.

than one knows why or how his heart beats. Peo
ple, I imagine, have always had dreams. In dreams
they often met persons whom they knew to be
dead, and it may be that much of the philosophy
of the present was born of dreams. I cannot admit
that anything supernatural ever has happened or ever
will happen. I cannot admit the truth of what you
call the " phenomena of the nineteenth century," if
by such " phenomena " you mean the reappear
ance of the dead. I do not deny the existence of
a future state, because I do not know. Neither do
I aver that there is one, because I do not know.
Upon this question I am simply honest. I find that
people who believe in immortality — or at least those
who say they do — are just as afraid of death as any
body else. I find that the most devout Christian
weeps as bitterly above his dead, as the man who
says that death ends all. You see the promises are
so far away, and the dead are so near. Still, I do
not say that man is not immortal ; but I do say that
there is nothing in the Bible to show that he is.
The Old Testament has not a word upon the sub
ject — except to show us how we lost immortality.
According to that book, man was driven from the
Garden of Eden, lest he should put forth his hand
and eat of the fruit of the tree of life and live for-

REPLY TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY. 147

ever. So the fact is, the Old Testament shows us
how we lost immortality. In the New Testament
we are told to seek for immortality, and it is also
stated that " God alone hath immortality."

There is this curious thing about Christians and
Spiritualists : The Spiritualists laugh at the Chris
tians for believing the miracles of the New Testa
ment ; they laugh at them for believing the story
about the witch of Endor. And then the Chris
tians laugh at the Spiritualists for believing that
the same kind of things happen now. As a matter
of fact, the Spiritualists have the best of it, because
their witnesses are now living, whereas the Chris
tians take simply the word of the dead — of men
they never saw and of men about whom they know
nothing. The Spiritualist, at least, takes the testi
mony of men and women that he can cross-examine.
It would seem as if these gentlemen ought to make
common cause. Then the Christians could prove
their miracles by the Spiritualists, and the Spirit
ualists could prove their " phenomena " by the
Christians.

I believe that thoughtful people require some ad
ditional testimony in order to settle the question,
" Does death end all ? " If the dead return to this
world they should bring us information of value.

148 REPLY TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY.

There are thousands of questions that studious his
torians and savants are endeavoring to settle —
questions of history, of philosophy, of law, of art,
upon which a few intelligent dead ought to be able
to shed a flood of light. All the questions of the
past ought to be settled. Some modern ghosts
ought to get acquainted with some of the Pharaohs,
and give us an outline of the history of Egypt.
They ought to be able to read the arrow-headed
writing and all the records of the past. The hiero
glyphics of all ancient peoples should be unlocked,
and thoughts and facts that have been imprisoned
for so many thousand years should be released
and once again allowed to visit brains. The
Spiritualists ought to be able to give us the history
of buried cities. They should clothe with life the
dust of all the past. If they could only bring us
valuable information ; if they could only tell us
about some steamer in distress so that succor
could be sent ; if they could only do something use
ful, the world would cheerfully accept their theories
and admit their " facts." I think that thoughtful
people have the right to demand such evidence. I
would like to have the spirits give us the history
of all the books of the New Testament and tell us
who first told of the miracles. If they could give us

REPLY TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY. 149

the history of any religion, or nation, or anything,
I should have far more confidence in the " phe
nomena of the nineteenth century."

There is one thing about the Spiritualists I like,
and that is, they are liberal. They give to others
the rights they claim for themselves. They do not
pollute their souls with the dogma of eternal pain.
They do not slander and persecute even those who
deny their " phenomena." But I cannot admit that
they have furnished conclusive evidence that death
does not end all. Beyond the horizon of this life
we have not seen. From the mysterious beyond no
messenger has come to me.

For the whole world I would not blot from the
sky of the future a single star. Arched by the bow
of hope let the dead sleep.

Question. How, when, where, and by whom was
our present calendar originated, — that is "Anno
Domini," — and what event in the history of the na
tions does it establish as a fact, if not the birth of
Jesus of Nazareth ?

Answer. I have already said, in answer to a
question by another gentleman, that I believe the
man Jesus Christ existed, and we now date from
somewhere near his birth. I very much doubt about

I5O REPLY TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY.

his having been born on Christmas, because in read
ing other religions, I find that that time has been
celebrated for thousands of years, and the cause of
it is this :

About the 2istor 226. of December is the shortest
day. After that the days begin to lengthen and the
sun comes back, and for many centuries in most
nations they had a festival in commemoration of
that event. The Christians, I presume, adopted this
day, and made the birth of Christ fit it. Three
months afterward — the 2 1 st of March — the days and
nights again become equal, and the day then begins
to lengthen. For centuries the nations living in
the temperate zones have held festivals to com
memorate the coming of spring — the yearly miracle
of leaf, of bud and flower. This is the celebration
known as Easter, and the Christians adopted that in
commemoration of Christ's resurrection. So that,
as a matter of fact, these festivals of Christmas and
Easter do not even tend to show that they stand for
or are in any way connected with the birth or resur
rection of Christ. In fact the evidence is over
whelmingly the other way.

While we are on the calendar business it may be
well enough to say that we get our numerals from
the Arabs, from whom also we obtained our ideas of

REPLY TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY. 151

algebra. The higher mathematics came to us from
the same source. So from the Arabs we receive
chemistry, and our first true notions of geography.
They gave us also paper and cotton.

Owing to the fact that the earth does not make
its circuit in the exact time of three hundred and
sixty-five days and a quarter, and owing to the
fact that it was a long time before any near approach
was made to the actual time, all calendars after
awhile became too inaccurate for general use, and
they were from time to time changed.

Right here, it may be well enough to remark,
that all the monuments and festivals in the world
are not sufficient to establish an impossible event.
No amount of monumental testimony, no amount of
living evidence, can substantiate a miracle. The
monument only proves the belief of the builders.

If we rely upon the evidence of monuments, cal
endars, dates, and festivals, all the religions on the
earth can be substantiated. Turkey is filled with
such monuments and much of the time wasted in
such festivals. We celebrate the Fourth of July,
but such celebration does not even tend to prove
that God, by his special providence, protected
Washington from the arrows of an Indian. The
Hebrews celebrate what is called the Passover, but

152 REPLY TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY.

this celebration does not even tend to prove that
the angel of the Lord put blood on the door-posts
in Egypt. The Mohammedans celebrate to-day the
flight of Mohammed, but that does not tend to prove
that Mohammed was inspired and was a prophet of
God.

Nobody can change a falsehood to a truth by the
erection of a monument. Monuments simply prove
that people endeavor to substantiate truths and
falsehoods by the same means.

III.

Question. Letting the question as to hell here
after rest for the present, how do you account for the
hell here — namely, the existence of pain ? There
are people who, by no fault of their own, are at this
present time in misery. If for these there is no life
to come, their existence is a mistake ; but if there is
a life to come, it may be that the sequel to the acts
of the play to come will justify the pain and misery
of this present time ? — REV. MYRON W. REED.

Answer. There are four principal theories :

First — That there is behind the universe a being
of infinite power and wisdom, kindness, and justice.

Second — That the universe has existed from
eternity, and that it is the only eternal existence, and
that behind it is no creator.

Third — That there is a God who made the uni
verse, but who is not all-powerful and who is, under
the circumstances, doing the best he can.

Fourth — That there is an all-powerful God who

(153)

154 REPLY TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY.

made the universe, and that there is also a nearly
all-powerful devil, and this devil ravels about as fast
as this God knits.

By the last theory, as taught by Plato, it is ex
tremely easy to account for the misery in this world.
If we admit that there is a malevolent being with
power enough, and with cunning enough, to fre
quently circumvent God, the problem of evil becomes
solved so far as this world is concerned. But why
this being was evil is still unsolved ; why the devil
is malevolent is still a mystery. Consequently you
will have to go back of this world, on that theory,
to account for the origin of evil. If this devil al
ways existed, then, of course, the universe at one
time was inhabited only by this God and this devil.

If the third theory is correct, we can account for the
fact that God does not see to it that justice is always
done.

If the second theory is true, that the universe has
existed from eternity, and is without a creator, then
we must account for the existence of evil and good,
not by personalities behind the universe, but by the
nature of things.

If there is an infinitely good and wise being who
created all, it seems to me that he should have made
a world in which innocence should be a sufficient

REPLY TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY. 155

shield. He should have made a world where the
just man should have nothing to fear.

My belief is this : We are surrounded by obsta
cles. We are filled with wants. We must have
clothes. We must have food. We must protect
ourselves from sun and storm, from heat and cold.
In our conflict with these obstacles, with each other,
and with what may be called the forces of nature, all
do not succeed. It is a fact in nature that like be
gets like ; that man gives his constitution, at least
in part, to his children ; that weakness and strength
are in some degree both hereditary. This is a fact
in nature. I do not hold any god responsible for
this fact — filled as it is with pain and joy. But it
seems to me that an infinite God should so have
arranged matters that the bad would not pass —
that it would die with its possessor — that the good
should survive, and that the man should give to his
son, not the result of his vices, but the fruit of his
virtues.

I cannot see why we should expect an infinite God
to do better in another world than he does in this.
If he allows injustice to prevail here, why will he
not allow the same thing in the world to come ? If
there is any being with power to prevent it, why is
crime permitted ? If a man standing upon the rail-

156 REPLY TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY.

way should ascertain that a bridge had been carried
off by a flood, and if he also knew that the train
was coming filled with men, women, and children ;
with husbands going to their wives, and wives re
joining their families ; if he made no effort to stop
that train ; if he simply sat down by the roadside to
witness the catastrophe, and so remained until the
train dashed off the precipice, and its load of life
became a mass of quivering flesh, he would be de
nounced by every good man as the most monstrous
of human beings. And yet this is exactly what the
supposed God does. He, if he exists, sees the train
rushing to the gulf. He gives no notice. He sees
the ship rushing for the hidden rock. He makes no
sign. And he so constructed the world that assas
sins lurk in the air — hide even in the sunshine — and
when we imagine that we are breathing the breath of
life, we are taking into ourselves the seeds of
death.

There are two facts inconsistent in my mind — a
martyr and a God. Injustice upon earth renders the
justice of heaven impossible.

I would not take from those suffering in this
world the hope of happiness hereafter. My princi
pal object has been to take away from them the fear
of eternal pain hereafter. Still, it is impossible for

REPLY TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY. 157

me to explain the facts by which I am surrounded,
if I admit the existence of an infinite Being. I find
in this world that physical and mental evils afflict
the good. It seems to me that I have the same
reason to expect the bad to be rewarded hereafter.
I have no right to suppose that infinite wisdom will
ever know any more, or that infinite benevolence
will increase in kindness, or that the justice of the
eternal can change. If, then, this eternal being
allows the good to suffer pain here, what right have
we to say that he will not allow them to suffer for
ever ?

Some people have insisted that this life is a kind
of school for the production of self-denying men and
women — that is, for the production of character.
The statistics show that a large majority die under
five years of age. What would we think of a school
master who killed the most of his pupils the first day ?
If this doctrine is true, and if manhood cannot be
produced in heaven, those who die in childhood are
infinitely unfortunate.

I admit that, although I do not understand the sub
ject, still, all pain, all misery may be for the best. I
do not know. If there is an infinitely wise Being,
who is also infinitely powerful, then everything that
happens must be for the best. That philosophy of

158 REPLY TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY.

special providence, going to the extreme, is infinitely
better than most of the Christian creeds. There
seems to be no half-way house between special
providence and atheism. You know some of the
Buddhists say that when a man commits murder, that
is the best thing he could have done, and that to be
murdered was the best thing that could have happened
to the killed. They insist that every step taken is the
necessary step and the best step ; that crimes are as
necessary as virtues, and that the fruit of crime and
virtue is finally the same.

But whatever theories we have, we have at last
to be governed by the facts. We are in a world
where vice, deformity, weakness, and disease are
hereditary. In the presence of this immense and
solemn truth rises the religion of the body. Every
man should refuse to increase the misery of this
world. And it may be that the time will come when
man will be great enough and grand enough ut
terly to refrain from the propagation of disease and
deformity, and when only the healthy will be fathers
and mothers. We do know that the misery in this
world can be lessened ; consequently I believe in the
religion of this world. And whether there is a
heaven or hell here, or hereafter, every good man has
enough to do to make this world a little better than

REPLY TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY. 159

it is. Millions of lives are wasted in the vain effort
to find the origin of things, and the destiny of man.
This world has been neglected. We have been
taught that life should be merely a preparation for
death.

To avoid pain we must know the conditions of
health. For the accomplishment of this end we must
rely upon investigation instead of faith, upon labor
in place of prayer. Most misery is produced by ig
norance. Passions sow the seeds of pain.

Question. State with what words you can com
fort those who have, by their own fault, or by the
fault of others, found this life not worth living ?

Answer. If there is no life beyond this, and so
believing I come to the bedside of the dying — of one
whose life has been a failure — a ' ' life not worth liv
ing," I could at least say to such an one, " Your failure
ends with your death. Beyond the tomb there is
nothing for you — neither pain nor misery, neither
grief nor joy." But if I were a good orthodox Chris
tian, then I would have to say to this man, "Your
life has been a failure ; you have not been a Chris
tian, and the failure will be extended eternally ; you
have not only been a failure for a time, but you will
be a failure forever."

l6o REPLY TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY.

Admitting that there is another world, and that
the man's life had been a failure in this, then I
should say to him, " If you live again, you will have
the eternal opportunity to reform. There will be
no time, no date, no matter how many millions and
billions of ages may have passed away, at which you
will not have the opportunity of doing right."

Under no circumstances could I consistently say
to this man : " Although your life has been a failure ;
although you have made hundreds and thousands of
others suffer ; although you have deceived and be
trayed the woman who loved you ; although you
have murdered your benefactor ; still, if you will
now repent and believe a something that is unrea
sonable or reasonable to your mind, you will, at the
moment of death, be transferred to a world of
eternal joy." This I could not say. I would tell
him, " If you die a bad man here, you will commence
the life to come with the same character you leave
this. Character cannot be made by another for you.
You must be the architect of your own." There is
to me unspeakably more comfort in the idea that
every failure ends here, than that it is to be perpetu
ated forever.

How can a Christian comfort the mother of a girl
who has died without believing in Christ ? What

REPLY TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY. l6l

doctrine is there in Christianity to wipe away her
tears ? What words of comfort can you offer to the
mother whose brave boy fell in defence of his coun
try, she knowing and you knowing, that the boy was
not a Christian, that he did not believe in the Bible,
and had no faith in the blood of the atonement ?
What words of comfort have you for such fathers
and for such mothers ?

To me, there is no doctrine so infinitely absurd
as the idea that this life is a probationary state —
that the few moments spent here decide the fate of
a human soul forever. Nothing can be conceived
more merciless, more unjust. I am doing all I can
to destroy that doctrine. I want, if possible, to get
the shadow of hell from the human heart.

Why has any life been a failure here ? If God is
a being of infinite wisdom and kindness, why does
he make failures ? What excuse has infinite wisdom
for peopling the world with savages ? Why should
one feel grateful to God for having made him with
a poor, weak and diseased brain ; for having allowed
him to be the heir of consumption, of scrofula, or of
insanity ? Why should one thank God, who lived
and died a slave ?

After all, is it not of more importance to speak
the absolute truth ? Is it not manlier to tell the

1 62 REPLY TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY.

fact than to endeavor to convey comfort through
falsehood ? People must reap not only what they
sow, but what others have sown. The people of the
whole world are united in spite of themselves.

Next to telling a man, whose life has been a fail
ure, that he is to enjoy an immortality of delight —
next to that, is to assure him that a place of eternal
punishment does not exist.

After all, there are but few lives worth living in
any great and splendid sense. Nature seems filled
with failure, and she has made no exception in favor
of man. To the greatest, to the most successful, there
comes a time when the fevered lips of life long for
the cool, delicious kiss of death — when, tired of the
dust and glare of day, they hear with joy the rust
ling garments of the night.

IV.

" A RCHIBALD ARMSTRONG and Jonathan
**• Newgate were fast friends. Their views in
regard to the question of a future life, and the exist
ence of a God, were in perfect accord. They said :
' We know so little about these matters that we are
not justified in giving them any serious consideration.
Our motto and rule of life shall be for each one to
make himself as comfortable as he can, and enjoy
every pleasure within his reach, not allowing himself
to be influenced at all by thoughts of a future life.'

" Both had some money. Archibald had a large
amount. Once upon a time when no human eye
saw him — and he had no belief in a God — Jonathan
stole every dollar of his friend's wealth, leaving him
penniless. He had no fear, no remorse ; no one saw
him do the deed. He became rich, enjoyed life
immensely, lived in contentment and pleasure, until
in mellow old age he went the way of all flesh.
Archibald fared badly. The odds were against him.

(163)

164 REPLY TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY.

His money was gone. He lived in penury and
discontent, dissatisfied with mankind and with him
self, until at last, overcome by misfortune, and
depressed by an incurable malady, he sought rest
in painless suicide."

Question. What are we to think of the rule of
life laid down by these men ? Was either of them
inconsistent or illogical ? Is there no remedy to cor
rect such irregularities ? — REV. D. O'DONAGHUE.

Answer. The Rev. Mr. O'Donaghue seems to
entertain strange ideas as to right and wrong.
He tells us that Archibald Armstrong and Jonathan
Newgate concluded to make themselves as comfort
able as they could and enjoy every pleasure within
their reach, and the Rev. Mr. O'Donaghue states that
one of the pleasures within the reach of Mr. Newgate
was to steal what little money Mr. Armstrong had.
Does the reverend gentleman think that Mr. New
gate made or could make himself comfortable in
that way ? He tells us that Mr. Newgate " had no
remorse," — that he " became rich and enjoyed life
immensely," — that he " lived in contentment and
pleasure, until, in mellow old age, he went the way
of all flesh."

Does the reverend gentleman really believe that

REPLY TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY. 1 65

a man can steal without fear, without remorse?
Does he really suppose that one can enjoy the
fruits of theft, that a criminal can live a contented
and happy life, that one who has robbed his friend
can reach a mellow and delightful old age ? Is this
the philosophy of the Rev. Mr. O'Donaghue ?

And right here I may be permitted to ask, Why
did the Rev. Mr. O'Donaghue's God allow a thief
to live without fear, without remorse, to enjoy life
immensely and to reach a mellow old age ? And
why did he allow Mr. Armstrong, who had been
robbed, to live in penury and discontent, until at
last, overcome by misfortune, he sought rest in
suicide ? Does the Rev. Mr. O'Donaghue mean to
say that if there is no future life it is wise to steal
in this ? If the grave is the eternal home, would
the Rev. Mr. O'Donaghue advise people to commit
crimes in order that they may enjoy this life ? Such
is not my philosophy. Whether there is a God or
not, truth is better than falsehood. Whether there
is a heaven or hell, honesty is always the best
policy. There is no world, and can be none, where
vice can sow the seed of crime and reap the sheaves
of joy.

According to my view, Mr. Armstrong was alto
gether more fortunate than Mr. Newgate. I had

1 66 REPLY TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY.

rather be robbed than to be a robber, and I had
rather be of such a disposition that I would be
driven to suicide by misfortune than to live in con
tentment upon the misfortunes of others. The
reverend gentleman, however, should have made
his question complete — he should have gone the
entire distance. He should have added that Mr.
Newgate, after having reached a mellow old age,
was suddenly converted, joined the church, and died
in the odor of sanctity on the very day that his vic
tim committed suicide.

But I will answer the fable of the reverend gen
tleman with a fact.

A young man was in love with a girl. She was
young, beautiful, and trustful. She belonged to no
church — knew nothing about a future world — basked
in the sunshine of this. All her life had been filled
with gentle deeds. The tears of pity had sancti
fied her cheeks. She believed in no religion, wor
shiped no God, believed no Bible, but loved every
thing. Her lover in a fit of jealous rage murdered
her. He was tried ; convicted ; a motion for a new
trial overruled and a pardon refused. In his cell,
in the shadow of death, he was converted — he be
came a Catholic. With the white lips of fear he
confessed to a priest. He received the sacrament.

REPLY TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CLERGY. 1 67

He was hanged, and from the rope's end winged his
way to the realms of bliss. For months the mur
dered girl had suffered all the pains and pangs of
hell.

The poor girl will endure the agony of the dam
ned forever, while her murderer will be ravished with
angelic chant and song. Such is the justice of the
orthodox God.

Allow me to use the language of the reverend
gentleman : "Is there no remedy to correct such
irregularities ? "

As long as the idea of eternal punishment remains
a part of the Christian system, that system will be
opposed by every man of heart and brain. Of all
religious dogmas it is the most shocking, infamous,
and absurd. The preachers of this doctrine are the
enemies of human happiness ; they are the assassins
of natural joy. Every father, every mother, every
good man, every loving woman, should hold this
doctrine in abhorrence ; they should refuse to pay
men for preaching it ; they should not build churches
in which this infamy is taught ; they should teach
their little children that it is a lie ; they should take
this horror from childhood's heart — a horror that
makes the cradle as terrible as the coffin. •

THE BROOKLYN DIVINES.

THE BROOKLYN DIVINES.*

Question. The clergymen who have been inter
viewed, almost unanimously have declared that the
church is suffering very little from the skepticism of
the day, and that the influence of the scientific writers,
whose opinions are regarded as atheistic or infidel,
is not great ; and that the books of such writers are
not read as much as some people think they are.
What is your opinion with regard to that subject ?

Answer. It is natural for a man to defend his
business, to stand by his class, his caste, his creed.
And I suppose this accounts for the ministers all say
ing that infidelity is not on the increase. By com
paring long periods of time, it is very easy to see the
progress that has been made. Only a few years ago
men who are now considered quite orthodox would
have been imprisoned, or at least mobbed, for heresy.
Only a few years ago men like Huxley and Tyndall
and Spencer and Darwin and Humboldt would have
been considered as the most infamous of monsters.

* Brooklyn Union, 1888. (169)

1 7° THE BROOKLYN DIVINES.

Only a few years ago science was superstition's hired
man. The scientific men apologized for every fact
they happened to find. With hat in hand they
begged pardon of the parson for finding a fossil, and
asked the forgiveness of God for making any discov
ery in nature. At that time every scientific discov
ery was something to be pardoned. Moses was
authority in geology, and Joshua was considered the
first astronomer of the world. Now everything has
changed, and everybody knows it except the clergy.
Now religion is taking off" its hat to science. Relig
ion is finding out new meanings for old texts. We
are told that God spoke in the language of the com
mon people ; that he was not teaching any science ;
that he allowed his children not only to remain in
error, but kept them there. It is now admitted that
the Bible is no authority on any question of natural
fact ; it is inspired only in morality, in a spiritual
way. All, except the Brooklyn ministers, see that
the Bible has ceased to be regarded as authority.
Nobody appeals to a passage to settle a dispute of
fact. The most intellectual men of the world laugh
at the idea of inspiration. Men of the greatest
reputations hold all supernaturalism in contempt.
Millions of people are reading the opinions of men
who combat and deny the foundation of orthodox

THE BROOKLYN DIVINES.

Christianity. Humboldt stands higher than all the
apostles. Darwin has done more to change human
thought than all the priests who have existed. Where
there was one infidel twenty-five years ago, there
are one hundred now. I can remember when I
would be the only infidel in the town. Now I meet
them thick as autumn leaves ; they are everywhere.
In all the professions, trades, and employments,
the orthodox creeds are despised. They are not
simply disbelieved ; they are execrated. They are
regarded, not with indifference, but with passionate
hatred. Thousands and hundreds of thousands of
mechanics in this country abhor orthodox Christianity.
Millions of educated men hold in immeasurable con
tempt the doctrine of eternal punishment. The
doctrine of atonement is regarded as absurd by mill
ions. So with the dogma of imputed guilt, vicarious
virtue, and vicarious vice. I see that the Rev. Dr.
Eddy advises ministers not to answer the arguments
of infidels in the pulpit, and gives this wonderful
reason : That the hearers will get more doubts from
the answer than from reading the original arguments.
So the Rev. Dr. Hawkins admits that he cannot
defend Christianity from infidel attacks without
creating more infidelity. So the Rev. Dr. Haynes ad
mits that he cannot answer the theories of Robertson

172 THE BROOKLYN DIVINES.

Smith in popular addresses. The only minister
who feels absolutely safe on this subject, so far as
his congregation is concerned, seems to be the Rev.
Joseph Pullman. He declares that the young people
in his church don't know enough to have intelligent
doubts, and that the old people are substantially in
the same condition. Mr. Pullman feels that he is be
hind a breastwork so strong that other defence is
unnecessary. So the Rev. Mr. Foote thinks that
infidelity should never be refuted in the pulpit. I
admit that it never has been successfully done, but I
did not suppose so many ministers admitted the im
possibility. Mr. Foote is opposed to all public dis
cussion. Dr. Wells tells us that scientific atheism
should be ignored ; that it should not be spoken of
in the pulpit. The Rev, Dr. Van Dyke has the same
feeling of security enjoyed by Dr. Pullman, and he
declares that the great majority of the Christian peo
ple of to-day know nothing about current infidel
theories. His idea is to let them remain in igno-

o

ranee ; that it would be dangerous for the Christian
minister even to state the position of the infidel ;
that, after stating it, he might not, even with the help
of God, successfully combat the theory. These min
isters do not agree. Dr. Carpenter accounts for
infidelity by nicotine in the blood. It is all smoke.

THE BROOKLYN DIVINES. 173

He thinks the blood of the human family has de
teriorated. He thinks that the church is safe
because the Christians read. He differs with his
brothers Pullman and Van Dyke. So the Rev.
George E. Reed believes that infidelity should be
discussed in the pulpit. He has more confidence in
his general and in the weapons of his warfare than
some of his brethren. His confidence may arise
from the fact that he has never had a discussion.
The Rev. Dr. McClelland thinks the remedy is to
stick by the catechism ; that there is not now
enough of authority ; not enough of the brute force ;
thinks that the family, the church, and the state
ought to use the rod ; that the rod is the salvation
of the world ; that the rod is a divine institution ;
that fathers ought to have it for their children ;
that mothers ought to use it. This is a part of the
religion of universal love. The man who cannot
raise children without whipping them ought not to
have them. The man who would mar the flesh of a
boy or girl is unfit to have the control of a human
being. The father who keeps a rod in his house
keeps a relic of barbarism in his heart. There is
nothing reformatory in punishment ; nothing reform
atory in fear. Kindness, guided by intelligence, is
the only reforming force. An appeal to brute force

174 THE BROOKLYN DIVINES.

is an abandonment of love and reason, and puts
father and child upon a savage equality ; the sav-
ageness in the heart of the father prompting the
use of the rod or club, produces a like savageness in
the victim. The old idea that a child's spirit must
be broken is infamous. All this is passing away,
however, with orthodox Christianity. That children
are treated better than formerly shows conclusively
the increase of what is called infidelity. Infidelity
has always been a protest against tyranny in the
state, against intolerance in the church, against bar
barism in the family. It has always been an appeal
for light, for justice, for universal kindness and ten
derness.

Question. The ministers say, I believe, Colonel,
that worldliness is the greatest foe to the church, and
admit that it is on the increase ?

Answer. I see that all the ministers you have in
terviewed regard worldliness as the great enemy of
the church. What is worldliness ? I suppose
worldliness consists in paying attention to the affairs
of this world ; getting enjoyment out of this life ;
gratifying the senses, giving the ears music, the eyes
painting and sculpture, the palate good food ; culti
vating the imagination ; playing games of chance ;

THE BROOKLYN DIVINES.

adorning the person ; developing the body ; enrich
ing the mind ; investigating the facts by which we
are surrounded ; building homes ; rocking cradles ;
thinking ; working ; inventing ; buying ; selling ;
hoping — all this, I suppose, is worldliness. These
" worldly " people have cleared the forests, plowed
the land, built the cities, the steamships, the tele
graphs, and have produced all there is of worth and
wonder in the world. Yet the preachers denounce
them. Were it not for " worldly " people how
would the preachers get along ? Who would build
the churches ? Who would fill the contribution
boxes and plates, and who (most serious of all
questions) would pay the salaries ? It is the
habit of the ministers to belittle men who support
them — to slander the spirit by which they live. " It
is as though the mouth should tear the hand that
feeds it." The nobility of the Old World hold the
honest workingman in contempt, and yet are so con
temptible themselves that they are willing to live
upon his labor. And so the minister pretending to
be spiritual — pretending to be a spiritual guide —
looks with contempt upon the men who make it pos
sible for him to live. It may be said by " worldli
ness " they only mean enjoyment — that is, hearing
music, going to the theater and the opera, taking a

176 THE BROOKLYN DIVINES.

Sunday excursion to the silvery margin of the sea.
Of course, ministers look upon theaters as rival
attractions, and most of their hatred is born of busi
ness views. They think people ought to be driven
to church by having all other places closed. In my
judgment the theater has done good, while the
church has done harm. The drama never has in
sisted upon burning anybody. Persecution is not
born of the stage. On the contrary, upon the stage
have forever been found impersonations of patriot
ism, heroism, courage, fortitude, and justice, and
these impersonations have always been applauded,
and have been represented that they might be ap
plauded. In the pulpit, hypocrites have been wor
shiped ; upon the stage they have been held up to
derision and execration. Shakespeare has done far
more for the world than the Bible. The ministers
keep talking about spirituality as opposed to world-
liness. Nothing can be more absurd than this talk
of spirituality. As though readers of the Bible,
repeaters of texts, and sayers of prayers were en
gaged in a higher work than honest industry. Is
there anything higher than human love ? A man is
in love with a girl, and he has determined to work
for her and to give his life that she may have a life
of joy. Is there anything more spiritual than that

THE BROOKLYN DIVINES. 177

— anything higher ? They marry. He clears some
land. He fences a field. He builds a cabin ; and
she, of this hovel, makes a happy home. She plants
flowers, puts a few simple things of beauty upon the
walls. This is what the preachers call " worldli-
ness." Is there anything more spiritual ? In a little
while, in this cabin, in this home, is heard the drowsy
rhythm of the cradle's rock, while softly floats the
lullaby upon the twilight air. Is there anything
more spiritual, is there anything more infinitely ten
der than to see husband and wife bending, with
clasped hands, over a cradle, gazing upon the dim
pled miracle of love ? I say it is spiritual to work
for those you love ; spiritual to improve the phys
ical condition of mankind — for he who improves the
physical condition improves the mental. I believe
in the plowers instead of the prayers. I believe
in the new firm of " Health & Heresy " rather than
the old partnership of " Disease & Divinity," doing
business at the old sign of the " Skull & Cross-
bones." Seme of the ministers that you have inter
viewed, or at least one of them, tells us the cure for
worldliness. He says that God is sending fires, and
cyclones, and things of that character for the pur
pose of making people spiritual ; of calling their
attention to the fact that everything in this world is

178 THE BROOKLYN DIVINES.

of a transitory nature. The clergy have always had
great faith in famine, in affliction, in pestilence.
They know that a man is a thousand times more apt
to thank God for a crust or a crumb than for a ban
quet. They know that prosperity has the same
effect on the average Christian that thick soup has,
according to Bumble, on the English pauper : " It
makes 'em impudent." The devil made a mistake
in not doubling Job's property instead of leaving
him a pauper. In prosperity the ministers think
that we forget death and are too happy. In the
arms of those we love, the dogma of eternal fire is
for the moment forgotten. According to the minis
ters, God kills our children in order that we may
not forget him. They imagine that the man who
goes into Dakota, cultivates the soil and rears him
a little home, is getting too " worldly." And so God
starts a cyclone to scatter his home and the limbs
of wife and children upon the desolate plains, and
the ministers in Brooklyn say this is done because
we are getting too " worldly." They think we should
be more " spiritual ; " that is to say, willing to live
upon the labor of others ; willing to ask alms, say
ing, in the meantime, " It is more blessed to give
than to receive." If this is so, why not give the
money back ? " Spiritual " people are those who

THE BROOKLYN DIVINES. 1 79

eat oatmeal and prunes, have great confidence in
dried apples, read Cowper's " Task " and Pollok's
" Course of Time," laugh at the jokes in Harper s
Monthly, wear clothes shiny at the knees and elbows,
and call all that has elevated the world " beggarly
elements."

Question. Some of the clergymen who have been
interviewed admit that the rich and poor no longer
meet together, and deprecate the establishment of
mission chapels in connection with the large and
fashionable churches.

Answer. The early Christians supposed that the
end of the world was at hand. They were all sitting
on the dock waiting for the ship. In the presence of
such a belief what are known as class distinctions
could not easily exist. Most of them were exceed
ingly poor, and poverty is a bond of union. As a
rule, people are hospitable in the proportion that they
lack wealth. In old times, in the West, a stranger
was always welcome. He took in part the place
of the newspaper. He was a messenger from the
older parts of the country. Life was monotonous.
The appearance of the traveler gave variety. As
people grow wealthy they grow exclusive. As they
become educated there is a tendency to pick their

l8o THE BROOKLYN DIVINES.

society. It is the same in the church. The church
no longer believes the creed, no longer acts as though
the creed were true. If the rich man regarded the
sermon as a means of grace, as a kind of rope
thrown by the minister to a man just above the falls ;
if he regarded it as a lifeboat, or as a lighthouse,
he would not allow his coachman to remain outside.
If he really believed that the coachman had an im
mortal soul, capable of eternal joy, liable to ever
lasting pain, he would do his utmost to make the
calling and election of the said coachman sure. As
a matter of fact the rich man now cares but little
for servants. They are not included in the scheme
of salvation, except as a kind of job lot. The
church has become a club. It is a social affair, and
the rich do not care to associate in the week days
with the poor they may happen to meet at church.
As they expect to be in heaven together forever,
they can afford to be separated here. There will
Certainly be time enough there to get acquainted.
Another thing is the magnificence of the churches.
The church depends absolutely upon the rich. Poor
people feel out of place in such magnificent build
ings. They drop into the nearest seat ; like poor
relations, they sit on the extreme edge of the chair.
At the table of Christ they are below the salt.

THE BROOKLYN DIVINES. l8l

They are constantly humiliated. When subscrip
tions are asked for they feel ashamed to have their
mite compared with the thousands given by the
millionaire. The pennies feel ashamed to mingle
with the silver in the contribution plate. The re
sult is that most of them avoid the church. It costs
too much to worship God in public. Good clothes
are necessary, fashionably cut. The poor come in
contact with too much silk, too many jewels, too
many evidences of what is generally assumed to be
superiority.

Question. Would this state of affairs be remedied
if, instead of churches, we had societies of ethical
culture? Would not the rich there predominate
and the poor be just as much out of place ?

Answer. I think the effect would be precisely the
same, no matter what the society is, what object it
has, if composed of rich and poor. Class distinctions,
to a greater or less extent, will creep in — in fact,
they do not have to creep in. They are there at the
commencement, and they are born of the different
conditions of the members.

These class distinctions are not always made by
men of wealth. For instance, some men obtain
money, and are what we call snobs. Others obtain

1 82 THE BROOKLYN DIVINES.

it and retain their democratic principles, and meet
men according to the law of affinity, or general in
telligence, on intellectual grounds, for instance.

There is not only the distinction produced by
wealth and power, but there are the distinctions
born of intelligence, of culture, of character, of end,
object, aim in life. No one can blame an honest
mechanic for holding a wealthy snob in utter con
tempt. Neither can any one blame respectable pov
erty for declining to associate with arrogant wealth.
The right to make the distinction is with all classes,
and with the individuals of all classes. It is impos
sible to have any society for any purpose — that is,
where they meet together — without certain embar
rassments being produced by these distinctions.
Nowt for instance, suppose there should be a society
simply of intelligent and cultured people. There,
wealth, to a great degree, would be disregarded.
But, after all, the distinction that intelligence draws
between talent and genius is as marked and cruel as
was ever drawn between poverty and wealth. Wher
ever the accomplishment of some object is deemed
of such vast importance that, for the moment, all
minor distinctions are forgotten, then it is possible
for the rich and poor, the ignorant and intelligent,
to act in concert. This happens in political parties,

THE BROOKLYN DIVINES. 183

in time of war, and it has also happened whenever a
new religion has been founded. Whenever the rich
wish the assistance of the poor, distinctions are for
gotten. It is upon the same principle that we gave
liberty to the slave during the Civil war, and clad
him in the uniform of the nation ; we wanted him,
we needed him ; and, for the time, we were perfectly
willing to forget the distinction of color. Common
peril produces pure democracy. It is with societies
as with individuals. A poor young man coming to
New York, bent upon making his fortune, begins to
talk about the old fogies ; holds in contempt many
of the rules and regulations of the trade ; is loud in
his denunciation of monopoly ; wants competition ;
shouts for fair play, and is a real democrat. But
let him succeed ; let him have a palace in Fifth
Avenue, with his monogram on spoons and coaches ;
then, instead of shouting for liberty, he will call for
more police. He will then say : " We want protec
tion ; the rabble must be put down." We have an
aristocracy of wealth. In some parts of our country
an aristocracy of literature — men and women who
imagine themselves writers and who hold in contempt
all people who cannot express commonplaces in the
most elegant diction — people who look upon a mis
take in grammar as far worse than a crime. So, in

184 THE BROOKLYN DIVINES.

some communities we have an aristocracy of muscle.
The only true aristocracy, probably, is that of kind
ness. Intellect, without heart, is infinitely cruel ;
as cruel as wealth without a sense of justice ; as
cruel as muscle without mercy. So that, after all,
the real aristocracy must be that of goodness where
the intellect is directed by the heart.

Question. You say that the aristocracy of intellect
is quite as cruel as the aristocracy of wealth — what
do you mean by that ?

Answer. By intellect, I mean simply intellect ;
that is to say, the aristocracy of education — of sim
ple brain — expressed in innumerable ways — in in
vention, painting, sculpture, literature. And I meant
to say that that aristocracy was as cruel as that of
simple arrogant wealth. After all, why should a man
be proud of something given him by nature — some
thing that he did not earn, did not produce — some
thing that he could not help ? Is it not more rea
sonable to be proud of wealth which you have
accumulated than of brain which nature gave you ?
And, to carry this idea clearly out, why should we be
proud of anything ? Is there any proper occasion
on which to crow ? If you succeed, your success
crows for you ; if you fail, certainly crowing is not in

THE BROOKLYN DIVINES. 185

the best of taste. And why should a man be proud
of brain ? Why should he be proud of disposition or
of good acts ?

Question. You speak of the cruelty of the intel
lect, and yet, of course, you must recognize the right
of every one to select his own companions. Would
it be arrogant for the intellectual man to prefer the
companionship of people of his own class in preference
to commonplace and unintelligent persons ?

Answer. All men should have the same rights,
and one right that every man should have is to as
sociate with congenial people. There are thousands
of good men whose society I do not covet. They
may be stupid, or they may be stupid only in the
direction in which I am interested, and may be ex
ceedingly intelligent as to matters about which I
care nothing. In either case they are not congenial.
They have the right to select congenial company ;
so have I. And while distinctions are thus made,
they are not cruel ; they are not heartless. They
are for the good of all concerned, spring naturally
from the circumstances, and are consistent with the
highest philanthropy. Why we notice these dis
tinctions in the church more than we do in the club
is that the church talks one way and acts another ; be-

1 86 THE BROOKLYN DIVINES.

cause the church insists that a certain line of conduct
is essential to salvation, and that every human being
is in danger of eternal pain. If the creed were
true, then, in the presence of such an infinite verity,
all earthly distinctions should instantly vanish. Every
Christian should exert himself for the salvation of
the soul of a beggar with the same degree of earnest
ness that he would show to save a king. The acci
dents of wealth, education, social position, should be
esteemed as naught, and the richest should gladly
work side by side with the poorest. The churches
will never reach the poor as long as they sell pews ;
as long as the rich members wear their best clothes
on Sunday. As long as the fashions of the drawing-
room are taken to the table of the last supper, the
poor will remain in the highways and hedges.
Present fashion is more powerful than faith. So
long as the ministers shut up their churches, and
allow the poor to go to hell in summer ; as long as
they leave the devil without a competitor for three
months in the year, the churches will not materially
impede the march of human progress. People often,
unconsciously and without any malice, say something
or do something that throws an unexpected light
upon a question. The other day, in one of the New
York comic papers, there was a picture representing

THE BROOKLYN DIVINES. 1 87

the foremost preachers of the country at the seaside
together. It was regarded as a joke that they could
enjoy each other's society. These ministers are
supposed to be the apostles of the religion of kind
ness. They tell us to love even our enemies, and
yet the idea that they could associate happily to
gether is regarded as a joke ! After all, churches
are like other institutions, they have to be managed,
and they now rely upon music and upon elocution
rather than upon the gospel. They are becoming
social affairs. They are giving up the doctrine of
eternal punishment, and have consequently lost
their hold. The orthodox churches used to tell
us tiiere was to be a fire, and they offered to insure ;
and as long as the fire was expected the premiums
were paid and the policies were issued. Then came
the Universalist Church, saying that there would
be no fire, and yet asking the people to insure. For
such a church there is no basis. It undoubtedly
did good by its influence upon other churches. So
with the Unitarian. That church has no basis
for organization ; no reason, because no hell is
threatened, and heaven is but faintly promised.
Just as the churches have lost their belief in eternal
fire, they have lost their influence, and the reason
they have lost their belief is on account of the

1 88 THE BROOKLYN DIVINES.

diffusion of knowledge. That doctrine is becom
ing absurd and infamous. Intelligent people are
ashamed to broach it. Intelligent people can no
longer believe it. It is regarded with horror, and
the churches must finally abandon it, and when they
do, that is the end of the church militant.

Question. What do you say to the progress of the
Roman Catholic Church, in view of the fact that they
have not changed their belief, in any particular, in
regard to future punishment ?

Answer. Neither Catholicism nor Protestantism
will ever win another battle. The last victory of
Protestantism was won in Holland. Nations have
not been converted since then. The time has passed
to preach with sword and gun, and for that reason
Catholicism can win no more victories. That church
increases in this country mostly from immigration.
Catholicism does not belong to the New World. It
s at war with the idea of our Government, antago
nistic to true republicanism, and is in every sense
anti-American. The Catholic Church does not con
trol its members. That church prevents no crime.
It is not in favor of education. It is not the friend
of liberty. In Europe it is now used as a political
power, but here it dare not assert itself. There are

THE BROOKLYN DIVINES. 189

thousands of good Catholics. As a rule they prob
ably believe the creed of the church. That church
has lost the power to anathematize. It can no
longer burn. It must now depend upon other forces
— upon persuasion, sophistry, ignorance, fear, and
heredity.

Question. You have stated your objections to
the churches, what would you have to take their
place ?

Answer. There was a time when men had to
meet together for the purpose of being told the law.
This was before printing, and for hundreds and hun
dreds of years most people depended for their in
formation on what they heard. The ear was the
avenue to the brain. There was a time, of course,
when Freemasonry was necessary, so that a man
could carry, not only all over his own country, but to
another, a certificate that he was a gentleman ; that
he was an honest man. There was a time, and it was
necessary, for the people to assemble. They had no
books, no papers, no way of reaching each other.
But now all that is changed. The daily press gives
you the happenings of the world. The libraries
give you the thoughts of the greatest and best.
Every man of moderate means can command the

I9O THE BROOKLYN DIVINES.

principal sources of information. There is no ne
cessity for going to the church and hearing the same
story forever. Let the minister write what he
wishes to say. Let him publish it. If it is worth
buying, people will read it. It is hardly fair to get
them in a church in the name of duty and there in
flict upon them a sermon that under no circum
stances they would read. Of course, there will
always be meetings, occasions when people come
together to exchange ideas, to hear what a man has
to say upon some questions, but the idea of going
fifty-two days in a year to hear anybody on the same
subject is absurd.

Question. Would you include a man like Henry
Ward Beecher in that statement ?

Answer. Beecher is interesting just in proportion
that he is not orthodox, and he is altogether more
interesting when talking against his creed. He de
livered a sermon the other day in Chicago, in which
he takes the ground that Christianity is kindness,
and that, consequently, no one could be an infidel.
Every one believes in kindness, at least theoretically.
In that sermon he throws away all creed, and comes
to the conclusion that Christianity is a life, not an
aggregation of intellectual convictions upon certain

THE BROOKLYN DIVINES. 1 91

subjects. The more sermons like that are preached,
probably the better. What I intended was the
eternal repetition of the old story : That God made
the world and a man, and then allowed the devil to
tempt him, and then thought of a scheme of salva
tion, of vicarious atonement, 1500 years afterwards ;
drowned everybody except Noah and his family,
and afterward, when he failed to civilize the Jewish
people, came in person and suffered death, and
announced the doctrine that all who believed on
him would be saved, and those who did not, eter
nally lost. Now, this story, with occasional refer
ences to the patriarchs and the New Jerusalem, and
the exceeding heat of perdition, and the wonderful
joys of Paradise, is the average sermon, and this
story is told again, again, and again, by the same
men, listened to by the same people without any
effect except to tire the speaker and the hearer. If
all the ministers would take their texts from Shakes
peare ; if they would read every Sunday a selection
from some of the great plays, the result would be
infinitely better. They would all learn something ;
the mind would be enlarged, and the sermon would
appear short. Nothing has shown more clearly the
intellectual barrenness of the pulpit than baccalau
reate sermons lately delivered. The dignified dull-

IQ2 THE BROOKLYN DIVINES.

ness, the solemn stupidity of these addresses has
never been excelled. No question was met. The
poor candidates for the ministry were given no new
weapons. Armed with the theological flintlock of
a century ago, they were ordered to do battle for
doctrines older than their weapons. They were told
to rely on prayer, to answer all arguments by keep
ing out of discussions, and to overwhelm the skeptic
by ignoring the facts. There was a time when the
Protestant clergy were in favor of education ; that is
to say, education enough to make a Catholic a Prot
estant, but not enough to make a Protestant a phi
losopher. The Catholics are also in favor of educa
tion enough to make a savage a Catholic, and there
they stop. The Christian should never unsettle his
belief. If he studies, if he reads, he is in danger.
A new idea is a doubt ; a doubt is the threshold of
infidelity. The young ministers are warned against
inquiry. They are educated like robins ; they
swallow whatever is thrown in the mouth, worms or
shingle-nails, it makes no difference, and they are
expected to get their revenge by treating their flocks
precisely as the professors treated them. The creeds
of the churches are being laughed at. Thousands
of young men say nothing, because they do not wish
to hurt the feelings of mothers and maiden aunts.

THE BROOKLYN DIVINES. 193

Thousands of business men say nothing, for fear it
may interfere with trade. Politicians keep quiet for
fear of losing influence. But when you get at the
real opinions of people, a vast majority have out
grown the doctrines of orthodox Christianity. Some
people think these things good for women and chil
dren, and use the Lord as an immense policeman to
keep order. Every day ministers are uttering a
declaration of independence. They are being ex
amined by synods and committees of ministers, and
they are beginning everywhere to say that they do
not regard this life as a probationary stage ; that
the doctrine of eternal punishment is too bad ;
that the Bible is, in many things, foolish, absurd,
and infamous ; that it must have been written by
men. And the people at large are beginning to find
that the ministers have kept back the facts ; have
not told the history of the Bible ; have not given
to their congregations the latest advices, and so the
feeling is becoming almost general that orthodox
Christianity has outlived its usefulness. The church
has a great deal to contend with. The scientific
men are not religious. Geology laughs at Genesis,
and astronomy has concluded that Joshua knew
but very little of the motions of heavenly bodies.
Statesmen do not approve of the laws of Moses ;

194 THE BROOKLYN DIVINES.

the intellect of the world is on the other side.
There is something besides preaching on Sunday.
The newspaper is the rival of the pulpit. Nearly
all the cars are running on that blessed day.
Steamers take hundreds of thousands of excursion
ists. The man who has been at work all the week
seeks the sight of the sea, and this has become so
universal that the preacher is following his example.
The flock has ceased to be afraid of the wolf, and
the shepherd deserts the sheep. In a little while
all the libraries will be open — all the museums.
There will be music in the public parks ; the opera,
the theater. And what will churches do then ? The
cardinal points will be demonstrated to empty pews,
unless the church is wise enough to meet the intel
lectual demands of the present.

Question. You speak as if the influences working
against Christianity to-day will tend to crush it out
of existence. Do you think that Christianity is any
worse off now than it was during the French Revolu
tion, when the priests were banished from the
country and reason was worshiped ; or in England,
a hundred years ago, when Hume, Bolingbroke, and
others made their attacks upon it ?

Answer. You must remember that the French

THE BROOKLYN DIVINES. 195

Revolution was produced by Catholicism ; that it was
a reaction ; that it went to infinite extremes ; that it
was a revolution seeking revenge. It is not hard to
understand those times, provided you know the his
tory of the Catholic Church. The seeds of the French
Revolution were sown by priests and kings. The
people had suffered the miseries of slavery for a
thousand years, and the French Revolution came
because human nature could bear the wrongs no
longer. It was something not reasoned ; it was felt.
Only a few acted from intellectual convictions. The
most were stung to madness, and were carried away
with the desire to destroy. They wanted to shed
blood, to tear down palaces, to cut throats, and in
some way avenge the wrongs of all the centuries.
Catholicism has never recovered — it never will.
The dagger of Voltaire struck the heart ; the wound
was mortal. Catholicism has staggered from that
day to this.

It has been losing power every moment. At the
death of Voltaire there were twenty millions less
Catholics than when he was born. In the French
Revolution muscle outran mind ; revenge anticipated
reason. There was destruction without the genius
of construction. They had to use materials that had
been rendered worthless by ages of Catholicism.

196 THE BROOKLYN DIVINES.

The French Revolution was a failure because the
French people were a failure, and the French people
were a failure because Catholicism had made them
so. The ministers attack Voltaire without reading
him. Probably there are not a dozen orthodox min
isters in the world who have read the works of Vol
taire. I know of no one who has. Only a little
while ago, a minister told me he had read Voltaire.
I offered him one hundred dollars to repeat a para
graph, or to give the title, even, of one of Voltaire's
volumes. Most ministers think he was an atheist.
The trouble with the infidels in England a hundred
years ago was that they did not go far enough. It
may be that they could not have gone further and
been allowed to live. Most of them took the ground
that there was an infinite, all-wise, beneficent God,
creator of the universe, and that this all-wise, benefi
cent God certainly was too good to be the author
of the Bible. They, however, insisted that this
good God was the author of nature, and the theo
logians completely turned the tables by showing
that this god of nature was in the pestilence and
plague business, manufactured earthquakes, over
whelmed towns and cities, and was, of necessity,
the author of all pain and agony. In my judgment,
the Deists were all successfully answered. The god

THE BROOKLYN DIVINES. 197

of nature is certainly as bad as the God of the Old
Testament. It is only when we discard the idea of
a deity, the idea of cruelty or goodness in nature,
that we are able ever to bear with patience the ills
of life. I feel that I am neither a favorite nor a
victim. Nature neither loves nor hates me. I do
not believe in the existence of any personal god. I
regard the universe as the one fact, as the one exist
ence — that is, as the absolute thing. I am a part
of this. I do not say that there is no God ; I simply
say that I do not believe there is. There may be
millions of them. Neither do I say that man is not
immortal. Upon that point I admit that I do not
know, and the declarations of all the priests in the
world upon that subject give me no light, and do
not even tend to add to my information on the sub
ject, because I know that they know that they do not
know. The infidelity of a hundred years ago knew
nothing, comparatively speaking, of geology ; noth
ing of astronomy ; nothing of the ideas of Lamarck
and Darwin ; nothing of evolution ; nothing, com
paratively speaking, of other religions ; nothing of
India, that womb of metaphysics ; in other words,
the infidels of a hundred years ago knew the creed
of orthodox Christianity to be false, but had not the
facts to demonstrate it. The infidels of to-day have

198 THE BROOKLYN DIVINES.

the facts ; that is the difference. A hundred years
ago it was a guessing prophecy ; to-day it is the fact
and fulfillment. Everything in nature is working
against superstition to-day. Superstition is like a
thorn in the flesh, and everything, from dust to stars,
is working together to destroy the false. The small
est pebble answers the greatest parson. One blade
of grass, rightly understood, destroys the orthodox
creed.

Question. You say that the pews will be empty
in the future unless the church meets the intellectual
demands of the present. Are not the ministers of
to-day, generally speaking, much more intellectual
than those of a hundred years ago, and are not the
" liberal " views in regard to the inspiration of the
Bible, the atonement, future punishment, the fall of
man, and the personal divinity of Christ which openly
prevail in many churches, an indication that the
church is meeting the demands of many people who
do not care to be classed as out-and-out disbelievers
in Christianity, but who have advanced views on
those and other questions ?

Answer. As to the first part of this question, I do
not think the ministers of to-day are more intellectual
than they were a hundred years ago ; that is, I do

THE BROOKLYN DIVINES. 199

not think they have greater brain capacity, but I think
on the average, the congregations have a higher
amount. The amelioration of orthodox Christianity
is not by the intelligence in the pulpit, but by the
brain in the pews. Another thing : One hundred
years ago the church had intellectual honors to be
stow. The pulpit opened a career. Not so now.
There are too many avenues to distinction and
wealth — too much worldliness. The best minds
do not go into the pulpit. Martyrs had rather be
burned than laughed at. Most ministers of to-day
are not naturally adapted to other professions prom
ising eminence. There are some great exceptions,
but those exceptions are the ministers nearest in
fidels. Theodore Parker was a great man. Henry
Ward Beecher is a great man — not the most consist
ent man in the world — but he is certainly a man
of mark, a remarkable genius. If he could only get
rid of the idea that Plymouth Church is necessary
to him — after that time he would not utter an or
thodox word. Chapin was a man of mind. I might
mention some others, but, as a rule, the pulpit is not
remarkable for intelligence. The intelligent men of
the world do not believe in orthodox Christianity. It
is to-day a symptom of intellectual decay. The con
servative ministers are the stupid ones. The con-

200 THE BROOKLYN DIVINES.

servative professors are those upon whose ideas
will be found the centuries' moss, old red sandstone
theories, pre-historic silurian. Now, as to the sec
ond part of the question : The views of the church
are changing, the clergy of Brooklyn to the contrary,
notwithstanding. Orthodox religion is a kind of boa-
constrictor ; anything it can not dodge it will swal
low. The church is bound to have something for
sale that somebody wants to buy. According to the
pew demand will be the pulpit supply. In old
times the pulpit dictated to the pews. Things have
changed. Theology is now run on business princi
ples. The gentleman who pays for the theories in
sists on having them suit him. Ministers are intel
lectual gardeners, and they must supply the market
with such religious vegetables as the congregations
desire. Thousands have given up belief in the in
spiration of the Bible, the divinity of Christ, the
atonement idea and original sin. Millions believe
now, that this is not a state of probation ; that a
man, provided he is well off and has given liberally
to the church, or whose wife has been a regular at
tendant, will, in the next world, have another chance ;
that he will be permitted to file a motion for a new
trial. Others think that hell is not as warm as it
used to be supposed ; that, while it is very hot in

THE BROOKLYN DIVINES. 2OI

the middle of the day, the nights are cool ; and that,
after all, there is not so much to fear from the future.
They regard the old religion as very good for the
poor, and they give them the old ideas on the same
principle that they give them their old clothes.
These ideas, out at the elbows, out at the knees,
buttons off, somewhat raveled, will, after all, do very
well for paupers. There is a great trade of this
kind going on now — selling old theological clothes
to the colored people in the South. All I have said
applies to all churches. The Catholic Church changes
every day. It does not change its ceremonies ; but
the spirit that begot the ceremonies, the spirit that
clothed the skeleton of ceremony with the flesh and
blood and throb of life and love, is gone. The spirit
that built the cathedrals, the spirit that emptied the
wealth of the world into the lap of Rome, has turned
in another direction. Of course, the churches are all
going to endeavor to meet the demands of the hour.
They will find new readings for old texts. They
will re-punctuate and re-parse the Old Testament.
They will find that " flat" meant "a little rounding ; "
that " six days " meant " six long times ;" that the
word " flood " should have been translated " damp
ness," " dew," or " threatened rain ;" that Daniel in
the lion's den was an historical myth; that Samson

2O2 THE BROOKLYN DIVINES.

and his foxes had nothing to do with this world. All
these things will be gradually explained and made to
harmonize with the facts of modern science. They
will not change the words of the creed ; they will
simply give " new meanings ;" and the highest criti
cism to-day is that which confesses and avoids. In
other words, the churches will change as the people
change. They will keep for sale that which can be
sold. Already the old goods are being " marked
down." If, however, the church should fail, why
then it must go. I see no reason, myself, for its ex
istence. It apparently does no good ; it devours
without producing ; it eats without planting, and is a
perpetual burden. It teaches nothing of value. It
misleads, mystifies, and misrepresents. It threatens
without knowledge and promises without power. In
my judgment, the quicker it goes the better for all
mankind. But if it does not go in name, it must go
in fact, because it must change ; and, therefore, it is
only a question of time when it ceases to divert from
useful channels the blood and muscle of the world.

Question. You say that in the baccalaureate ser
mons delivered lately the theological students were
told to answer arguments by keeping out of discus
sion. Is it not the fact that ministers have of late years

THE BROOKLYN DIVINES. 2OT,

preached very largely on scientific disbelief, agnosti
cism, and infidelity, so much so as to lead to their
being reprimanded by some of their more conserva
tive brethren ?

Answer. Of course there are hundreds of thou
sands of ministers perpetually endeavoring to answer
infidelity. Their answers have done so much harm
that the more conservative among the clergy have
advised them to stop. Thousands have answered
me, and their answers, for the most part, are like this :
Paine was a blackguard, therefore the geology of
Genesis is on a scientific basis. We know the doc
trine of the atonement is true, because in the French
Revolution they worshiped reason. And we know,
too, all about the fall of man and the Garden of Eden
because Voltaire was nearly frightened to death
when he came to die. These are the usual argu
ments, supplemented by a few words concerning my
self. And, in my view, they are the best that can
be made. Failing to answer a man's argument, the
next best thing is to attack his character. " You
have no case," said an attorney to the plaintiff. " No
matter," said the plaintiff, " I want you to give the
defendant the devil."

Question. What have you to say to the Rev. Dr.

204 THE BROOKLYN DIVINES.

Baker's statement that he generally buys five or six
tickets for your lectures and gives them to young
men, who are shocked at the flippant way in which
you are said to speak of the Bible ?

Answer. Well, as to that, I have always wondered
why I had such immense audiences in Brooklyn and
New York. This tends to clear away the mystery.
If all the clergy follow the example of Dr. Baker, that
accounts for the number seeking admission. Of
course, Dr. Baker would not misrepresent a thing
like that, and I shall always feel greatly indebted to
him, shall hereafter regard him as one of my agents,
and take this occasion to return my thanks. He is
certainly welcome to all the converts to Christianity
made by hearing me. Still, I hardly think it honest
in young men to play a game like that on the doctor.

Question. You speak of the eternal repetition of
the old story of Christianity and say that the more
sermons like the one Mr. Beecher preached lately the
better. Is it not the fact that ministers, at the pres
ent time, do preach very largely on questions of purely
moral, social, and humanitarian interest, so much so,
indeed, as to provoke criticism on the part of the
secular newspaper press ?

Answer. I admit that there is a general tendency

THE BROOKLYN DIVINES. 205

in the pulpit to preach about things happening in this
world ; in other words, that the preachers them
selves are beginning to be touched with worldliness.
They find that the New Jerusalem has no particular
interest for persons dealing in real estate in this
world. And thousands of people are losing interest
in Abraham, in David, Haggai, and take more inter
est in gentlemen who have the cheerful habit of
living. They also find that their readers do not
wish to be reminded perpetually of death and coffins
and worms and dust and gravestones and shrouds
and epitaphs and hearses, biers, and cheerful sub
jects of that character. That they prefer to hear
the minister speak about a topic in which they have
a present interest, and about which something cheer
ful can be said. In fact, it is a relief to hear about
politics, a little about art, something about stocks
or the crops, and most ministers find it necessary to
advertise that they are going to speak on something
that has happened within the last eighteen hundred
years, and that, for the time being, Shadrach, Me-
shech, and Abednego will be left in the furnace. Of
course, I think that most ministers are reasonably
honest. Maybe they don't tell all their doubts, but
undoubtedly they are endeavoring to make the world
better, and most of the church members think that

206 THE BROOKLYN DIVINES.

they are doing the best that can be done. I am not
criticising their motives, but their methods. I am
not attacking the character or reputation of minis
ters, but simply giving my ideas, avoiding anything
personal. I do not pretend to be very good, nor
very bad — just fair to middling.

Question. You say that Christians will not read
for fear that they will unsettle their belief. Father
Fransiola (Roman Catholic) said in the interview I
had with him : " If you do not allow man to reason
you crush his manhood. Therefore, he has to reason
upon the credibility of his faith, and through reason,
guided by faith, he discovers the truth, and so satisfies
his wants."

Answer. Without calling in question the perfect
sincerity of Father Fransiola, I think his statement
is exactly the wrong end to. I do not think that rea
son should be guided by faith; I think that faith
should be guided by reason. After all, the highest
possible conception of faith would be the science of
probabilities, and the probable must not be based on
what has not happened, but upon what has ; not upon
something we know nothing about, but the nature
of the things with which we are acquainted. The
foundation we must know something about, and
whenever we reason, we must have something as a

THE BROOKLYN DIVINES. 2O;

basis, something1 secular, something that we think
we know. About these facts we reason, sometimes
by analogy, and we say thus and so has happened,
therefore thus and so may happen. We do not say
thus and so may happen, therefore something else has
happened. We must reason from the known to the
unknown, not from the unknown to the known.
This Father admits that if you do not allow a man to
reason you crush his manhood. At the same time
he says faith must govern reason. Who makes the
faith? The church. And the church tells the man
that he must take the faith, reason or no reason, and
that he may afterward reason, taking the faith as
a fact. This makes him an intellectual slave, and
the poor devil mistakes for liberty the right to ex
amine his own chains. These gentlemen endeavor
to satisfy their prisoners by insisting that there is
nothing beyond the walls.

Question. You criticise the church for not encour-

/

aging the poor to mingle with the rich, and yet you
defend the right of a man to choose his own company.
Are not these same distinctions made by non-confess
ing Christians in real life, and will not there always
be some greater, richer, wiser, than the rest ?

Answer. I do not blame the church because there

2O8 THE BROOKLYN DIVINES.

are these distinctions based on wealth, intelligence,
and culture. What I blame the church for is pre
tending to do away with these distinctions. These
distinctions in men are inherent ; differences in brain,
in race, in blood, in education, and they are differences
that will eternally exist — that is, as long as the hu
man race exists. Some will be fortunate, some
unfortunate, some generous, some stingy, some rich,
some poor. What I wish to do away w:th is the
contempt and scorn and hatred existing between
rich and poor. I want the democracy of kindness —
what you might call the republicanism of justice. I
do not have to associate with a man to keep from rob
bing him. I can give him his rights without enjoy
ing his company, and he can give me my rights
without inviting me to dinner. Why should not
poverty have rights ? And has not honest poverty
the right to hold dishonest wealth in contempt, and
will it not do it, whether it belongs to the same
church or not? We cannot judge men by their
wealth, or by the position they hold in society. I
like every kind man ; I hate every cruel one. I like
the generous, whether they are poor or rich, ignorant
or cultivated. I like men that love their families,
that are kind to their wives, gentle with their
children, no matter whether they are millionaires or

THE BROOKLYN DIVINES. 2O9

mendicants. And to me the blossom of benevolence,
of charity, is the fairest flower, no matter whether it
blooms by the side of a hovel, or bursts from a vine
climbing the marble pillar of a palace. I respect no
man because he is rich ; I hold in contempt no man
because he is poor.

Question. Some of the clergymen say that the
spread of infidelity is greatly exaggerated ; that it
makes more noise and creates more notice than con
servative Christianity simply on account of its being
outside of the accepted line of thought.

Answer. There was a time when an unbeliever,
open and pronounced, was a wonder. At that time
the church had great power ; it could retaliate ; it could
destroy. The church abandoned the stake only when
too many men objected to being burned. At that
time infidelity was clad not simply in novelty, but
often in fire. Of late years the thoughts of men
have been turned, by virtue of modern discoveries,
as the result of countless influences, to an investi
gation of the foundation of orthodox religion. Other
religions were put in the crucible of criticism, and
nothing was found but dross. At last it occurred
to the intelligent to examine our own religion, and
this examination has excited great interest and great
comment. People want to hear, and they want to

2IO THE BROOKLYN DIVINES.

hear because they have already about concluded
themselves that the creeds are founded in error.

Thousands come to hear me because they are in
terested in the question, because they want to hear
a man say what they think. They want to hear their
own ideas from the lips of another. The tide has
turned, and the spirit of investigation, the intelli
gence, the intellectual courage of the world is on
the other side. A real good old-fashioned orthodox
minister who believes the Thirty-nine articles with
all his might, is regarded to-day as a theological
mummy, a kind of corpse acted upon by the galvanic
battery of faith, making strange motions, almost like
those of life — not quite.

Question. How would you convey moral instruc
tion from youth up, and what kind of instruction
would you give ?

Answer. I regard Christianity as a failure. Now,
then, what is Christianity ? I do not include in the
word " Christianity " the average morality of the
world or the .morality taught in all systems of relig
ion ; that i.s, as distinctive Christianity. Christianity
is this : A belief in the inspiration of the Scriptures,
the atonement, the life, death, and resurrection of
Christ, an eternal reward for the believers in Christ,
and eternal punishment for the rest of us. Now,

THE BROOKLYN DIVINES. 2 I I

take from Christianity its miracles, its absurdities
of the atonement and fall of man and the inspira
tion of the Scriptures, and I have no objection to it
as I understand it. I believe, in the main, in the
Christianity which I suppose Christ taught, that is,
in kindness, gentleness, forgiveness. I do not be
lieve in loving enemies ; I have pretty hard work to
love my friends. Neither do I believe in revenge.
No man can afford to keep the viper of revenge in
his heart. But I believe in justice, in self-defence.
Caristianity — that is, the miraculous part — must be
abandoned. As to morality — morality is born, is
born of the instinct of self-preservation. If man
could not suffer, the word " conscience " never would
have passed his lips. Self-preservation makes lar
ceny a crime. Murder will be regarded as a bad
thing as long as a majority object to being murdered.
Morality does not come from the clouds ; it is born
of human want and human experience. We need
no inspiration, no inspired work. The industrious
man knows that the idle has no right to rob him of
the product of his labor, and the idle man knows
that he has no right to do it. It is not wrong be
cause we find it in the Bible, but I presume it was
put in the Bible because it is wrong. Then, you
find in the Bible other things upheld that are in-

212 THE BROOKLYN DIVINES.

famous. And why ? Because the writers of the
Bible were barbarians, in many things, and because
that book is a mixture of good and evil. I see no
trouble in teaching morality without miracle. I see
no use of miracle. What can men do with it?
Credulity is not a virtue. The credulous are not
necessarily charitable. Wonder is not the mother
of wisdom. I believe children should be taught to
investigate and to reason for themselves, and that
there are facts enough to furnish a foundation for
all human virtue. We will take two families; in
the one, the father and mother are both Christians,
and they teach their children their creed ; teach
them that they are naturally totally depraved ; that
they can only hope for happiness in a future life by
pleading the virtues of another, and that a certain
belief is necessary to salvation ; that God punishes
his children forever. Such a home has a certain at
mosphere. Take another family ; the father and
mother teach their children that they should be
kind to each other because kindness produces hap
piness ; that they should be gentle ; that they should
be just, because justice is the mother of joy. And
suppose this father and mother say to their children :
" If you are happy it must be as a result of your own
actions ; if you do wrong you must suffer the conse-

THE BROOKLYN DIVINES. 2 13

quences. No Christ can redeem you ; no savior
can suffer for you. You must suffer the consequences
of your own misdeeds. If you plant you must reap,
and you must reap what you plant." And suppose
these parents also say : " You must find out the
conditions of happiness. You must investigate the
circumstances by which you are surrounded. You
must ascertain the nature and relation of things so
that you can act in accordance with known facts, to
the end that you may have health and peace." In
such a family, there would be a certain atmosphere,
in my judgment, a thousand times better and purer
and sweeter than in the other. The church gener
ally teaches that rascality pays in this world, but not
in the next ; that here virtue is a losing game, but
the dividends will be large in another world. They
tell the people that they must serve God on credit,
but the devil pays cash here. That is not my doc
trine. My doctrine is that a thing is right because
it pays, in the highest sense. That is the reason it
is right. The reason a thing is wrong is because it
is the mother of misery. Virtue has its reward here
and now. It means health ; it means intelligence,
contentment, success. Vice means exactly the op
posite. Most of us have more passion than judg
ment, carry more sail than ballast, and by the temp-

214 THE BROOKLYN DIVINES.

est of passion we are blown from port, we are
wrecked and lost. We cannot be saved by faith
or by belief. It is a slower process : We must be
saved by knowledge, by intelligence — the only lever
capable of raising mankind.

Question. The shorter catechism, Colonel, you
may remember says " that man's chief end is to
glorify God and enjoy him forever." What is your
idea of the chief end of man ?

Answer. It has always seemed a little curious to
me that joy should be held in such contempt here,
and yet promised hereafter as an eternal reward.
Why not be happy here, as well as in heaven. Why
not have joy here ? Why not go to heaven now —
that is, to-day ? Why not enjoy the sunshine of this
world, and all there is of good in it ? It is bad
enough ; so bad that I do not believe it was ever cre
ated by a beneficent deity ; but what little good there
is in it, why not have it ? Neither do I believe that
it is the end of man to glorify God. How can the Infi
nite be glorified ? Does he wish for reputation ? He
has no equals, no superiors. How can he have what
we call reputation ? How can he achieve what we
call glory ? Why should he wish the flattery of the
average Presbyterian ? What good will it do him

THE BROOKLYN DIVINES. 215

to know that his course has been approved of by the
Methodist Episcopal Church ? What does he care,
even, for the religious weeklies, or the presidents of
religious colleges ? I do not see how we can help
God, or hurt him. If there be an infinite Being, cer
tainly nothing we can do can in any way affect him.
We can affect each other, and therefore man should
be careful not to sin against man. For that reason
I have said a hundred times, injustice is the only
blasphemy. If there be a heaven I want to associate
there with the ones who have loved me here. I
might not like the angels and the angels might not
like me. I want to find old friends. I do not care
to associate with the Infinite ; there could be no
freedom in such society. I suppose I am not spirit
ual enough, and am somewhat touched with world-
liness. It seems to me that everybody ought to be
honest enough to say about the Infinite " I know
nothing ;" of eternal joy, " I have no conception ;"
about another world, " I know nothing." At the
same time, I am not attacking anybody for believing
in immortality. The more a man can hope, and the
less he can fear, the better. I have done what I
could to drive from the human heart the shadow of
eternal pain. I want to put out the fires of an ig
norant and revengeful hell.

LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION.

THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION.*

COLONEL INGERSOLL'S OPENING.
Ladies, Mr. President and Gentlemen :

1AM here to-night for the purpose of defending
your right to differ with me. I want to convince
you that you are under no compulsion to accept my
creed ; that you are, so far as I am concerned, abso
lutely free to follow the torch of your reason accord
ing to your conscience ; and I believe that you are

* A discussion between Col. Robert G. Ingersoll, Hon. Frederic R. Coudert, Ex-
Qov. Stewart L. Woodford, before the Nineteenth Century Club of New York, at the
Metropolitan Opera House, May 8, 1888. The points for discussion, as submitted in
advance, were the following propositions :

First. Thought is a necessary natural product — the result of what is called im
pressions made through the medium of the senses upon the brain, not forgetting the
Fact of heredity.

Second. No human being is accountable to any being— human or divine— for his
thoughts.

Third. Human beings have a certain interest in the thoughts of each other, and
one who undertakes to tell his thoughts should be honest.

Fourth. All have an equal right to express their thoughts upon all subjects.

Fifth. For one man to say to another, ' ' I tolerate you, " is an assumption of
authority— not a disclaimer, but a waiver, of the right to persecute.

Sixth. Each man has the same right to express to the whole world his ideas, that
the rest of the world have to express their thoughts to him.

Courtlandt Palmer, Esq., President of the Club, in introducing Mr. Ingersoll,
among other things said :

' ' The inspiration of the orator of the evening seems to be that of the great Victor
Hugo, who uttered the august saying, ' There shall be no slavery of the mind.'

' ' When I was in Paris, about a'year ago, I visited the tomb of Victor Hugo. It was
placed in a recess in the crypt of the Pantheon. Opposite it was the tomb of Jean
Jacques Rousseau. Near by, in another recess, was the memorial statue of Voltaire ;
and I felt, as I looked at these three monuments, that had Colonel Ingersoll been
born in France, and had he passed in his long life account, the acclaim of the
liberal culture of France would have enlarged that trio into a quartette.

' ' Colonel Ingersoll has appeared in several important debates in print, notably with
Judge Jeremiah S. Black, formerly Attorney-General of the United States ; lately
in the pages of The North American Review with the Rev. Dr. Henry M. Field, and
last but not least the Right Hon. William E Gladstone, England's greatest citizen,
has taken up the cudgel against him in behalf of his view of Orthodoxy. To-night,
I believe for the first time, the colonel has consented to appear in a colloquial dis
cussion, I have now the honor to introduce this distinguished orator.' ' (217)

2l8 THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION.

civilized to that degree that you will extend to me
the right that you claim for yourselves.

I admit, at the very threshold, that every human
being thinks as he must ; and the first proposition
really is, whether man has the right to think. It
will bear but little discussion, for the reason that no
man can control his thought. If you think you can,
what are you going to think to-morrow ? What
are you going to think next year ? If you can ab
solutely control your thought, can you stop think
ing ?

The question is, Has the will any power over
the thought ? What is thought ? It is the result of
nature — of the outer world — first upon the senses —
those impressions left upon the brain as pictures of
things in the outward world, and these pictures are
transformed into, or produce, thought ; and as long
as the doors of the senses are open, thoughts will be
produced. Whoever looks at anything in nature,
thinks. Whoever hears any sound — or any sym
phony — no matter what — thinks. Whoever looks
upon the sea, or on a star, or on a flower, or on the
face of a fellow-man, thinks, and the result of that
look is an absolute necessity. The thought pro
duced will depend upon your brain, upon your ex
perience, upon the history of your life.

THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION.

One who looks upon the sea, knowing that the
one he loved the best had been devoured by its
hungry waves, will have certain thoughts ; and he
who sees it for the first time, will have different
thoughts. In other words, no two brains are alike ;
no two lives have been or are or ever will be the
same. Consequently, nature cannot produce the
same effect upon any two brains, or upon any two
hearts.

The only reason why we wish to exchange
thoughts is that we are different. If we were all
the same, we would die dumb. No thought would
be expressed after we found that our thoughts were
precisely alike. We differ — our thoughts are differ
ent. Therefore the commerce that we call conver
sation.

Back of language is thought. Back of language
is the desire to express our thought to another.
This desire not only gave us language — this desire
has given us the libraries of the world. And not
only the libraries ; this desire to express thought, to
show to others the splendid children of the brain,
has written every book, formed every language,
painted every picture, and chiseled every statue —
this desire to express our thought to others, to reap
the harvest of the brain,

22O THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION.

If, then, thought is a necessity, " it follows as the
night the day " that there is, there can be, no respon
sibility for thought to any being, human or divine.

A camera contains a sensitive plate. The light
flashes upon it, and the sensitive plate receives a
picture. Is it in fault, is it responsible, for the pic
ture ? So with the brain. An image is left on it, a
picture is imprinted there. The plate may not be
perfectly level — it may be too concave, or too con
vex, and the picture may be a deformity ; so with
the brain. But the man does not make his own
brain, and the consequence is, if the picture is dis
torted it is not the fault of the brain.

We take then these two steps : first, thought is a
necessity ; and second, the thought depends upon
the brain.

Each brain is a kind of field where nature sows
with careless hands the seeds of thought. Some
brains are poor and barren fields, producing weeds
and thorns, and some are like the tropic world
where grow the palm and pine — children of the sun
and soil.

You read Shakespeare. What do you get out
of Shakespeare ? All that your brain is able to
hold. It depends upon your brain. If you are
great — if you have been cultivated — if the wings of

THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION. 221

your imagination have been spread — if you have
had great, free, and splendid thoughts — jr you have
stood upon the edge of things — if you have had the
courage to meet all that can come — you get an
immensity from Shakespeare. If you have lived
nobly — if you have loved with every drop of your
blood and every fibre of your being — if you have
suffered — if you have enjoyed — then you get an
immensity from Shakespeare. But if you have lived
a poor, little, mean, wasted, barren, weedy life
— you get very little from that immortal man.

So it is from every source in nature — what you
get depends upon what you are.

Take then the second step. If thought is a ne
cessity, there can be no responsibility for thought.
And why has man ever believed that his fellow-man
was responsible for his thought ?

Everything that is, everything that has been, has
been naturally produced. Man has acted as, under
the same circumstances, we would have acted ; be
cause when you say " under the circumstances," it is
the same as to say that you would do exactly as
they have done.

There has always been in men the instinct of self-
preservation. There was a time when men believed,
and honestly believed, that there was above them a

222 THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION.

God. Sometimes they believed in many, but it will
be sufficient for my illustration to say, one. Man be
lieved that there was in the sky above him a God
who attended to the affairs of men. He believed that
that God, sitting upon his throne, rewarded virtue
and punished vice. He believed also, that that God
held the community responsible for the sins of indi
viduals. He honestly believed it. When the flood
came, or when the earthquake devoured, he really
believed that some God was filled with anger — with
holy indignation — at his children. He believed it,
and so he looked about among his neighbors to see
who was in fault, and if there was any man who had
failed to bring his sacrifice to the altar, had failed to
kneel, it may be to the priest, failed to be present in
the temple, or had given it as his opinion that the
God of that tribe or of that nation was of no use, then,
in order to placate the God, they seized the neighbor
and sacrificed him on the altar of their ignorance and
of their fear.

They believed when the lightning leaped from the
cloud and left its blackened mark upon the man, that
he had done something — that he had excited the
wrath of the gods.

And while man so believed, while he believed
that it was necessary, in order to defend himself, to

THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION. 22$

kill his neighbor — he acted simply according to the
dictates of his nature.

What I claim is that we have nov advanced far
enough not only to think, but to know, that the con
duct of man has nothing to do with the phenomena
of nature. We are now advanced far enough to
absolutely know that no man can be bad enough and
no nation infamous enough to cause an earthquake.
I think we have got to that point that we absolutely
know that no man can be wicked enough to entice
one of the bolts from heaven — that no man can be
cruel enough to cause a drought — and that you could
not have infidels enough on the earth to cause another
flood. I think we have advanced far enough not
only to say that, but to absolutely know it — I mean
people who have thought, and in whose minds there
is something like reasoning.

We know, if we know anything, that the lightning
is just as apt to hit a good rrian as a bad man. We
know it. We know that the earthquake is just as
liable to swallow virtue as to swallow vice. And
you know just as well as I do that a ship loaded
with pirates is just as apt to outride the storm as
one crowded with missionaries. You know it.

I am now speaking of the phenomena of nature. I
believe, as much as I believe that I live, that the

224 THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION.

reason a thing is right is because it tends to the
happiness of mankind. I believe, as much as I be-
believe that I live, that on the average the good man
is not only the happier man, but that no man is happy
who is not good.

If then we have gotten over that frightful, that
awful superstition — we are ready to enjoy hearing the
thoughts of each other.

I do not say, neither do I intend to be understood
as saying, that there is no God. All I intend to
say is, that so far as we can see, no man is punished,
no nation is punished by lightning, or famine, or
storm. Everything happens to the one as to the
other.

Now, let us admit that there is an infinite God.
That has nothing to do with the sinlessness of
thought — nothing to do with the fact that no man is
accountable to any being, human or divine, for what
he thinks. And let me tell you why.

If there be an infinite God, leave him to deal with
men who sin against him. You can trust him, if
you believe in him. He has the power. He has a
heaven full of bolts. Trust him. And now that you
are satisfied that the earthquake will not swallow you,
or the lightning strike you, simply because you tell
your thoughts, if one of your neighbors differs with

THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION. 225

you, and acts improperly or thinks or speaks im
properly of your God, leave him with your God — he
can attend to him a thousand times better than you
can. He has the time. He lives from eternity to
eternity. More than that, he has the means. So
that, whether there be this Being or not, you have
no right to interfere with your neighbor.

The next proposition is, that I have the same
right to express my thought to the whole world,
that the whole world has to express its thought to
me.

I believe that this realm of thought is not a de
mocracy, where the majority rule ; it is not a repub
lic. It is a country with one inhabitant. This brain
is the world in which my mind lives, and my mind is
the sovereign of that realm. We are all kings, and
one man balances the rest of the world as one drop
of water balances the sea. Each soul is crowned.
Each soul wears the purple and the tiara ; and only
those are good citizens of the intellectual world who
give to every other human being every right that they
claim for themselves, and only those are traitors in
the great realm of thought who abandon reason and
appeal to force.

If now I have got out of your minds the idea that
you must abuse your neighbors to keep on good

226 THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION.

terms with God, then the question of religion is ex
actly like every question — I mean of thought, of
mind — I have nothing to say now about action.

Is there authority in the world of art ? Can a
legislature pass a law that a certain picture is beauti
ful, and can it pass a law putting in the penitentiary
any impudent artistic wretch who says that to him it
is not beautiful ? Precisely the same with music.
Our ears are not all the same ; we are not touched
by the same sounds — the same beautiful memories
do not arise. Suppose you have an authority in
music ? You may make men, it may be, by offer
ing them office or by threatening them with punish
ment, swear that they all like that tune — but you
never will know till the day of your death whether
they do or not. The moment you introduce a des
potism in the world of thought, you succeed in
making hypocrites — and you get in such a posi
tion that you never know what your neighbor
thinks.

So in the great realm of religion, there can be no
force. No erne can be compelled to pray. No mat
ter how you tie him down, or crush him down on
his face or on his knees, it is above the power of
the human race to put in that man, by force, the spirit
of prayer. You cannot do it. Neither can you com-

THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION. 22 /

pel anybody to worship a God. Worship rises from
the heart like perfume from a flower. It cannot obey ;
it cannot do that which some one ekj commands.
It must be absolutely true to the law of its own na
ture. And do you think any God would be satisfied
with compulsory worship ? Would he like to see
long rows of poor, ignorant slaves on their terri
fied knees repeating words without a soul — giving
him what you might call the shucks of sound ? Will
any God be satisfied with that ? And so I say, we
must be as free in one department of thought as an
other.

Now, I take the next step, and that is, that the
rights of all are absolutely equal.

I have the same right to give you my opinion that
you have to give me yours. I have no right to
compel you to hear, if you do not want to. I have
no right to compel you to speak if you do not want
to. If you do not wish to know my thought, I have
no right to force it upon you.

The next thing is, that this liberty of thought,
this liberty of expression, is of more value than any
other thing beneath the stars. Of more value than
any religion, of more value than any government, of
more value than all the constitutions that man has
written and all the laws that he has passed, is this

228 THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION.

liberty — the absolute liberty of the human mind.
Take away that word from language, and all other
words become meaningless sounds, and there is
then no reason for a man being and living upon the
earth.

So then, I am simply in favor of intellectual hos
pitality — that is all. You come to me with a new
idea. I invite you into the house. Let us see what
you have. Let us talk it over. If I do not like
your thought, I will bid it a polite " good day." If
I do like it, I will say : " Sit down ; stay with me,
and become a part of the intellectual wealth of my
world." That is all.

And how any human being ever has had the im
pudence to speak against the right to speak, is be
yond the power of my imagination. Here is a man
who speaks — who exercises a right that he, by his
speech, denies. Can liberty go further than that ?
Is there any toleration possible beyond the liberty to
speak against liberty — the real believer in free speech
allowing others to speak against the right to speak ?
Is there any limitation beyond that ?

So, whoever has spoken against the right to speak
has admitted that he violated his own doctrine. No
man can open his mouth against the freedom of
speech without denying every argument he may put

THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION.

forward. Why ? He is exercising the right that
he denies. How did he get it ? Suppose there is
one man on an island. You will all admit now that
he would have the right to do his own thinking. You
will all admit that he has the right to express his
thought. Now, will somebody tell me how many
men would have to emigrate to that island before
the original settler would lose his right to think and
his right to express himself?

If there be an infinite Being — and it is a question
that I know nothing about — you would be perfectly
astonished to know how little I do know on that
subject, and yet I know as much as the aggregated
world knows, and as little as the smallest insect that
ever fanned with happy wings the summer air — if
there be such a Being, I have the same right to think
that he has. simply because it is a necessity of my
nature — because I cannot help it. And the Infinite
would be just as responsible to the smallest intelli
gence living in the infinite spaces — he would be just
as responsible to that intelligence as that intelligence
can be to him, provided that intelligence thinks as a
necessity of his nature.

There is another phrase to which I object — " tolera
tion." " The limits of toleration." Why say " tol
eration " ? I will tell you why. When the thinkers

230 THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION.

were in the minority — when the philosophers were
vagabonds — when the men with brains furnished
fuel for bonfires — when the majority were ignorantly
orthodox — when they hated the heretic as a last
year's leaf hates a this year's bud — in that delightful
time these poor people in the minority had to say to
ignorant power, to conscientious rascality, to cruelty
born of universal love : " Don't kill us ; don't be
so arrogantly meek as to burn us ; tolerate us."
At that time the minority was too small to talk
about rights, and the great big ignorant majority
when tired of shedding blood, said : " Well, we will
tolerate you ; we can afford to wait ; you will not
live long, and when the Being of infinite compassion
gets hold of you we will glut our revenge through
an eternity of joy ; we will ask you every now and
then, ' What is your opinion now ?' '

Both feeling absolutely sure that infinite goodness
would have his revenge, they " tolerated " these
thinkers, and that word finally took the place almost
of liberty. But I do not like it. When you say " I
tolerate," you do not say you have no right to punish,
no right to persecute. It is only a disclaimer for a
few moments and for a few years, but you retain the
right. I deny it.

And let me say here to-night — it is your experi-

THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION. 23!

ence, it is mine — that the bigger a man is the more
charitable he is ; you know it. The more brain he
has, the more excuses he finds for all the world ; you
know it. And if there be in heaven an infinite
Being, he must be grander than any man ; he must
have a thousand times more charity than the human
heart can hold, and is it possible that he is going to
hold his ignorant children responsible for the impres
sions made by nature upon their brain ? Let us
have some sense.

There is another side to this question, and that is
with regard to the freedom of thought and expres
sion in matters pertaining to this world.

No man has a right to hurt the character of a
neighbor. He has no right to utter slander. He
has no right to bear false witness. He has no right
to be actuated by any motive except for the general
good — but the things he does here to his neighbor
— these are easily defined and easily punished. All
that I object to is setting up a standard of authority
in the world of art, the world of beauty, the world of
poetry, the world of worship, the world of religion,
and the world of metaphysics. That is what I object
to ; and if the old doctrines had been carried out,
every human being that has benefited this world
would have been destroyed. If the people who be-

232 THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION.

Heve that a certain belief is necessary to insure
salvation had had control of this world, we would
have been as ignorant to-night as wild beasts.
Every step in advance has been made in spite of
them. There has not been a book of any value
printed since the invention of that art — and when I
say " of value," I mean that contained new and
splendid truths — that was not anathematized by the
gentlemen who believed that man is responsible for
his thought. Every step has been taken in spite of
that doctrine.

Consequently I simply believe in absolute liberty
of mind. And I have no fear about any other world
— not the slightest. When I get there, I will give
my honest opinion of that country ; I will give my
honest thought there ; and if for that I lose my soul,
I will keep at least my self-respect^

A man tells me a story. I believe it, or dis
believe it. I cannot help it. I read a story — no
matter whether in the original Hebrew, or whether
it has been translated. I believe it or I disbelieve
it. No matter whether it is written in a very solemn
or a very flippant manner — I have my idea about its
truth. And I insist that each man has the right to
judge that for himself, and for that reason, as I have
already said, I am defending your right to differ with

THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION. 233

me — that is all. And if you do differ with me, all that
it proves is that I do not agree with you. There is
no man that lives to-night beneath the stars — there
is no being — that can force my soul uAJon its knees,
unless the reason is given. I will be no slave. I do
not care how big my master is, I am just as small, if
a slave, as though the master were small. It is not
the greatness of the master that can honor the slave.
In other words, I am going to act according to my
right, as I understand it, without interfering with any
other human being. And now, if you think — any of
you, that you can control your thought, I want you
to try it. There is not one here who can by any
possibility think, only as he must.

You remember the story of the Methodist
minister who insisted that he could control his
thoughts. A man said to him, " Nobody can con
trol his own mind." " Oh, yes, he can," the
preacher replied. " My dear sir," said the man,
" you cannot even say the Lord's Prayer without
thinking of something else." " Oh, yes, I can."
" Well, if you will do it, I will give you that horse,
the best riding horse in this county." " Well, who
is to judge ? " said the preacher. " I will take your
own word for it, and if you say the Lord's Prayer
through without thinking of anything else, I will give

234 THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION.

you that horse." So the minister shut his eyes and
began: "Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be
thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done," —
" I suppose you will throw in the saddle and bridle? "

I say to you to-night, ladies and gentlemen, that
I feel more interest in the freedom of thought and
speech than in all other questions, knowing, as I
do, that it is the condition of great and splendid
progress for the race ; remembering, as I do, that
the opposite idea has covered the cheek of the
world with tears ; remembering, and knowing, as I
do, that the enemies of free thought and free speech
have covered this world with blood. These men
have filled the heavens with an infinite monster ;
they have filled the future with fire and flame, and
they have made the present, when they have had
the power, a perdition. These men, these doctrines,
have carried fagots to the feet of philosophy.
These men, these doctrines, have hated to see the
dawn of an intellectual day. These men, these
doctrines, have denied every science, and denounced
and killed every philosopher they could lay their
bloody, cruel, ignorant hands upon.

And for that reason, I am for absolute liberty of
thought, everywhere, in every department, domain,
and realm of the human mind.

REMARKS OF MR. COUDERT.

Ladies and Gentlemen and Mr. President : It is
not only " the sense of the church " that I am lack
ing now, I am afraid it is any sense at all ; and I am
only wondering how a reasonably intelligent being
— meaning myself — could in view of the misfortune
that befell Mr. Kernan, have undertaken to speak
to-night.

This is a new experience. I have never sung in any
of Verdi's operas — I have never listened to one
through — but I think I would prefer to try all three of
these performances rather than go on with this duty
which, in a vain moment of deluded vanity, I heed
lessly undertook.

I am in a new field here. I feel very much like
the master of a ship who thinks that he can safely guide
his bark. (I am not alluding to the traditional bark
of St. Peter, in which I hope that I am and will al
ways be, but the ordinary bark that requires a com
pass and a rudder and a guide.) And I find that all
these ordinary things, which we generally take for
granted, and which are as necessary to our safety as the

(235)

236 THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION.

air which we breathe, or the sunshine that we enjoy,
have been quietly, pleasantly, and smilingly thrown
overboard by the gentleman who has just preceded
me.

Carlyle once said — and the thought came to me as
the gentlman was speaking — "A Comic History of
England !" — for some wretch had just written such a
book — (talk of free thought and free speech when
men do such things!) — " A Comic History of En
gland!" The next thing we shall hear of will be "A
Comic History of the Bible !" I think we have
heard the first chapter of that comic history to-night ;
and the only comfort that I have — and possibly some
other antiquated and superannuated persons of either
sex, if such there be within my hearing — is that such
things as have seemed to me charmingly to partake
of the order of blasphemy, have been uttered with
such charming bonhomie, and received with such en
thusiastic admiration, that I have wondered whether
we are in a Christian audience of the nineteenth
century, or in a possible Ingersollian audience of the
twenty-third.

And let me first, before I enter upon the very few
and desultory remarks, which are the only ones that
I can make now and with which I may claim your
polite attention — let me say a word about the com-

THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION. 237

parison with which your worthy President opened
these proceedings.

There are two or three things upon which I am a
little sensitive : One, aspersions upon the land of my
birth — the city of New York ; the next, the land of
my fathers ; and the next, the bark that I was just
speaking of.

Now your worthy President, in his well-meant
efforts to exhibit in the best possible style the new
actor upon his stage, said that he had seen Victor
Hugo's remains, and Voltaire's, and Jean Jacques
Rousseau's, and that he thought the niche might
well be filled by Colonel Ingersoll. If that had been
merely the expression of a natural desire to see him
speedily annihilated, I might perhaps in the inter
ests of the Christian community have thought, but
not said, "Amen !" (Here you will at once observe
the distinction I make between free thought and free
speech !)

I do not think, and I beg that none of you, and
particularly the eloquent rhetorician who preceded
me, will think, that in anything I may say I intend
any personal discourtesy, for I do believe to some
extent in freedom of speech upon a platform like
this. Such a debate as this rises entirely above
and beyond the plane of personalities.

238 THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION.

I suppose that your President intended to com
pare Colonel Ingersoll to Voltaire, to Hugo and to
Rousseau. I have no retainer from either of those
gentlemen, but for the reason that I just gave you,
I wish to defend their memory from what I consider
a great wrong. And so I do not think — with all
respect to the eloquent and learned gentleman —
that he is entitled to a place in that niche. Vol
taire did many wrong things. He did them for
many reasons, and chiefly because he was human.
But Voltaire did a great deal to build up. Leaving
aside his noble tragedies, which charmed and de
lighted his audiences, and dignified the stage,
throughout his work was some effort to ameliorate
the condition of the human race. He fought against
torture ; he fought against persecution ; he fought
against bigotry ; he clamored and wrote against
littleness and fanaticism in every way, and he was
not ashamed when he entered upon his domains at
Fernay, to erect a church to the God of whom the
most our friend can say is, "I do not know whether
he exists or not."

Rousseau did many noble things, but he was a
madman, and in our day would probably have been
locked up in an asylum and treated by intelligent
doctors. His works, however, bear the impress of a

THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION. 2 39

religious education, and if there be in his works or
sayings anything to parallel what we have heard to
night — whether a parody on divine revelation, or a
parody upon the prayer of prayers — I have not
seen it.

Victor Hugo has enriched the literature of his day
with prose and poetry that have made him the
Shakespeare of the nineteenth century — poems as
deeply imbued with a devout sense of responsibility
to the Almighty as the writings of an archbishop or
a cardinal. He has left the traces of his beneficent
action all over the literature of his day, of his country,
and of his race.

All these men, then, have built up something.
Will anyone, the most ardent admirer of Colonel
Ingersoll, tell me what he has built up ?

To go now to the argument. The learned gentle
man says that freedom of thought is a grand thing.
Unfortunately, freedom of thought exists. What
one of us would not put manacles and fetters upon
his thoughts, if he only could ? What persecution
have any of us suffered to compare with the invol
untary recurrence of these demons that enter our
brain — that bring back past events that we would
wipe out with our tears, or even with our blood —
and make us slaves of a power unseen but uncon-

240 THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION.

trollable and uncontrolled ? Is it not unworthy of
so eloquent and intelligent a man to preach before
you here to-night that thought must always be
free ?

When in the history of the world has thought ever
been fettered ? If there be a page in history upon
which such an absurdity is written, I have failed to
find it.

Thought is beyond the domain of man. The most
cruel and arbitrary ruler can no more penetrate into
your bosom and mine and extract the inner work
ings of our brain, than he can scale the stars or pull
down the sun from its seat. Thought must be free.
Thought is unseen, unhandled and untouched, and
no despot has yet been able to reach it, except when
the thoughts burst into words. And therefore, may
we not consider now, and say, that liberty of word is
what he wants, and not liberty of thought, which no
one has ever gainsaid, or disputed ?

Liberty of speech ! — and the gentleman generously
tells us, " Why, I only ask for myself what I would
cheerfully extend to you. I wish you to be free ;
and you can even entertain those old delusions
which your mothers taught, and look with envious
admiration upon me while I scale the giddy heights
of Olympus, gather the honey and approach the

THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION. 24!

stars and tell you how pure the air is in those upper
regions which you are unable to reach."

Thanks for his kindness ! But I think that it is
one thing for us to extend to him that liberty that he
asks for — the liberty to destroy — and another thing
for him to give us the liberty which we claim — the
liberty to conserve.

Oh, destruction is so easy, destruction is so
pleasant! It marks the footsteps all through our
life. The baby begins by destroying his bib ; the
older child by destroying his horse, and when the
man is grown up and he joins the regiment with
the latent instinct that when he gets a chance he will
destroy human life.

This building cost many thousand days' work. It
was planned by more or less skillful architects (ig
norant of ventilation, but well-meaning). Men
lavished their thought, and men lavished their sweat
for a pittance, upon this building. It took months
and possibly years to build it and to adorn it and
to beautify it. And yet, as it stands complete to
night with all of you here in the vigor of your life
and in the enjoyment of such entertainment as you
may get here this evening, I will find a dozen men
who with a few pounds of dynamite will reduce it
and all of us to instant destruction.

242 THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION.

The dynamite man may say to me, " I give you
full liberty to build and occupy and insure, if you
will give me liberty to blow up." Is that a fair bar
gain ? Am I bound in conscience and in good sense
to accept it ? Liberty of speech ! Tell me where
liberty of speech has ever existed. There have
been free societies, England was a free country.
France has struggled through crisis after crisis to
obtain liberty of speech. We think we have liberty
of speech, as we understand it, and yet who would
undertake to say that our society could live with
liberty of speech ? We have gone through many
crises in our short history, and we know that thought
is nothing before the law, but the word is an act —
as guilty at times as the act of killing, or burglary,
or any of the violent crimes that disgrace humanity
and require the police.

A word is an act — an act of the tongue ; and
why should my tongue go unpunished, and I who
wield it mercilessly toward those who are weaker
than I, escape, if my arm is to be punished when I use
it tyrannously ? Whom would you punish for the
murder of Desdemona — is it lago, or Othello ?
Who was the villain, who was the criminal, who de
served the scaffold — who but free speech ? lago
exercised free speech. He poisoned the ear of

THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION. 243

Othello and nerved his arm and Othello was the
murderer — but lago went scot free. That was a
word.

" Oh," says the counsel, " but that does not apply
to individuals ; be tender and charitable to individ
uals." Tender and charitable to men if they
endeavor to destroy all that you love and venerate
and respect !

Are you tender and charitable to me if you enter
my house, my castle, and debauch my children from
the faith that they have been taught ? Are you
tender and charitable to them and to me when you
teach them that I have instructed them in falsehood,
that their mother has rocked them in blasphemy,
and that they are now among the fools and the
witlings of the world because they believe in my
precepts ? Is that the charity that you speak of ?
Heaven forbid that liberty of speech such as that,
should ever invade my home or yours !

We all understand, and the learned gentleman
will admit, that his discourse is but an eloquent
apology for blasphemy. And when I say this,
I beg you to believe me incapable of resorting to the
cheap artifice of strong words to give point to a
pointless argument, or to offend a courteous adver
sary. I think if I put it to him he would, with

244 THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION.

characteristic candor, say, " Yes, that is what I claim
— the liberty to blaspheme ; the world has outgrown
these things ; and I claim to-day, as I claimed a few
months ago in the neighboring gallant little State of
New Jersey, that while you cannot slander man, your
tongue is free to revile and insult man's maker."
New Jersey was behind in the race for progress,
and did not accept his argument. His unfortu
nate client was convicted and had to pay the fine
which the press — which is seldom mistaken — says
came from the pocket of his generous counsel.

The argument was a strong one ; the argument
was brilliant, and was able ; and I say now, with
all my predilections for the church of my fathers,
and for your church (because it is not a question of
our differences, but it is a question whether the tree
shall be torn up by the roots, not what branches may
bear richer fruit or deserve to be lopped off) — I say,
why has every Christian State passed these statutes
against blasphemy ? Turning into ridicule sacred
things — firing off the Lord's Prayer as you would a
joke from Joe Miller or a comic poem — that is what
I mean by blasphemy. If there is any other or bet
ter definition, give it me, and I will use it.

Now understand. All these States of ours care
not one fig what our religion is. Behave your-

THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION. 245

selves properly, obey the laws, do not require the
intervention of the police, and the majesty of your
conscience will be as exalted as the sun. But the
wisest men and the best men — possibly not so elo
quent as the orator, but I may say it without offence
to him — other names that shine brightly in the galaxy
of our best men, have insisted and maintained that
the Christian faith was the ligament that kept our
modern society together, and our laws have said,
and the laws of most of our States say, to this day,
"Think what you like, but do not, like Samson, pull
the pillars down upon us all."

If I had anything to say, ladies and gentlemen, it
is time that I should say it now. My exordium has
been very long, but it was no longer than the
dignity of the subject, perhaps, demanded.

Free speech we all have. Absolute liberty of
speech we never had. Did we have it before the
war ? Many of us here remember that if you
crossed an imaginary line and went among some of
the noblest and best men that ever adorned this
continent, one word against slavery meant death.
And if you say that that was the influence of slavery,
I will carry you to Boston, that city which numbers
within its walls as many intelligent people to the
acre as any city on the globe — was it different there ?

246 THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION.

Why, the fugitive, beaten, blood-stained slave,
when he got there, was seized and turned back ;
and when a few good and brave men, in defence of
free speech, undertook to defend the slave and to
try and give him liberty, they were mobbed and
pelted and driven through the city. You may say,
" That proves there was no liberty of speech." No ;
it proves this : that wherever, and wheresoever, and
whenever, liberty of speech is incompatible with the
safety of the State, liberty of speech must fall back
and give way, in order that the State may be pre
served.

First, above everything, above all things, the
safety of the people is the supreme law. And if
rhetoricians, anxious to tear down, anxious to pluck
the faith from the young ones who are unable to
defend it, come forward with nickel-plated plati
tudes and commonplaces clothed in second-hand
purple and tinsel, and try to tear down the temple,
then it is time, I shall not say for good men — for I
know so few they make a small battalion — but for
good women, to come to the rescue.

GENERAL WOODFORD'S SPEECH.

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen : At this
late hour, I could not attempt — even if I would —
the eloquence of my friend Colonel Ingersoll ; nor
the wit and rapier-like sarcasm of my other valued
friend Mr. Coudert. But there are some things so
serious about this subject that we discuss to-night,
that I crave your pardon if, without preface, and with
out rhetoric, I get at once to what from my Protestant
standpoint seems the fatal logical error of Mr. Inger-
soll's position.

Mr. Ingersoll starts with the statement — and that
I may not, for I could not, do him injustice, nor my
self injustice, in the quotation, I will give it as he
stated it — he starts with this statement : that thought
is a necessary natural product, the result of what we
call impressions made through the medium of the
senses upon the brain.

Do you think that is thought ? Now stop — turn
right into your own minds — is that thought ? Does
not will power take hold ? Does not reason take

(247)

248 THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION.

hold ? Does not memory take hold, and is not
thought the action of the brain based upon the im
pression and assisted or directed by manifold and
varying influences ?

Secondly, our friend Mr. Ingersoll says that no
human being is accountable to any being, human or
divine, for his thought.

He starts with the assumption that thought is the
inevitable impression burnt upon the mind at once,
and then jumps to the conclusion that there is no
responsibility. Now, is not that a fair logical analy
sis of what he has said ?

My senses leave upon my mind an impression,
and then my mind, out of that impression, works
good or evil. The glass of brandy, being presented
to my physical sense, inspires thirst— Inspires the
thought of thirst — inspires the instinct of debauchery.
Am I not accountable for the result of the mind
given me, whether I yield to the debauch, or rise to
the dignity of self-control ?

Every thing of sense leaves its impression upon
the mind. If there be no responsibility anywhere,
then is this world blind chance. If there be no re
sponsibility anywhere, then my friend deserves no
credit if he be guiding you in the path of truth, and
I d*"*erve no censure if I be carrying you back into

THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION. 249

the path of superstition. Why, admit for a moment
that a man has no control over his thought, and you
destroy absolutely the power of regenerating the
world, the power of improving the world. The
world swings one way, or it swings the other. If
it be true that in all these ages we have come nearer
and nearer to a perfect liberty, that is true simply
and alone because the mind of man through reason,
through memory, through a thousand inspirations
and desires and hopes, has ever tended toward better
results and higher achievements.

No accountability ? I speak not for my friend,
but I recognize that I am accountable to myself ; I
recognize that whether I rise or fall, that whether my
life goes upward or downward, I am responsible to
myself. And so, in spite of all sophistry, so in spite
of all dream, so in spite of all eloquence, each
woman, each man within this audience is responsible
— first of all to herself and himself — whether when
bad thoughts, when passion, when murder, when
evil come into the heart or brain he harbors them
there or he casts them out.

I am responsible further — I am responsible to my
neighbor. I know that I am my neighbor's keeper,
I know that as I touch your life, as you touch mine,
I am responsible every moment, every hour, every

25O THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION.

day, for my influence upon you. I am either helping
you up, or I am dragging you down ; you are either
helping me up or you are dragging me down — and
you know it. Sophistry cannot get away from this ;
eloquence cannot seduce us from it. You know that
if you look back through the record of your life, there
are lives that you have helped and lives that you
have hurt. You know that there are lives on the
downward plane that went down because in an evil
hour you pushed them ; you know, perhaps with
blessing, lives that have gone up because you have
reached out to them a helping hand. That respon
sibility for your neighbor is a responsibility and an
accountability that you and I cannot avoid or evade.
I believe one thing further : that because there is
a creation there is a Creator. I believe that because
there is force, there is a Projector of force ; because
there is matter, there is spirit. I reverently believe
these things. I am not angry with my neighbor be
cause he does not ; it may be that he is right, that I
am wrong ; but if there be a Power that sent me
into this world, so far as that Power has given me
wrong direction, or permitted wrong direction, that
Power will judge me justly. So far as I disregard
the light that I have, whatever it may be — whether
jt be light of reason, light of conscience, light of

THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION. 251

history — so far as I do that which my judgment tells
me is wrong, I am responsible and I am account
able.

Now the Protestant theory, as I understand it, is
simply this : It would vary from the theory as taught
by the mother church — it certainly swings far away
from the theory as suggested by my friend ; I under
stand the Protestant theory to be this : That every
man is responsible to himself, to his neighbor, and to
his God, for his thought. Not for the first impres
sion — but for that impression, for that direction and
result which he intelligently gives to the first impres
sion or deduces from it. I understand that the Prot
estant idea is this : that man may think — we know
he will think — for himself ; but that he is responsible
for it. That a man may speak his thought, so long as
he does not hurt his neighbor. He must use his own
liberty so that he shall not injure the well-being of
any other one — so that when using this liberty, when
exercising this freedom, he is accountable at the last
to his God. And so Protestantism sends me into
the world with this terrible and solemn responsibility.

It leaves Mr. Ingersoll free to speak his thought at
the bar of his conscience, before the bar of his fellow-
man, but it holds him in the inevitable grip of abso
lute responsibility for every light word idly spoken.

252 THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION.

God grant that he may use that power so that he
can face that responsibility at the last !

It leaves to every churchman liberty to believe
and stand by his church according to his own con
viction. It stands for this ; the absolute liberty of
each individual man to think, to write, to speak, to
act, according to the best light within him ; limited
as to his fellows, by the condition that he shall not
use that liberty so as to injure them ; limited in the
other direction, by those tremendous laws which
are laws in spite of all rhetoric, and in spite of all
logic.

If I put my finger into the fire, that fire burns. If
I do a wrong, that wrong remains. If I hurt my
neighbor, the wrong reacts upon myself. If I would
try to escape what you call judgment, what you call
penalty, I cannot escape the working of the inevit
able law that follows a cause by effect ; I cannot
escape that inevitable law — not the creation of some
dark monster flashing through the skies — but, as I
believe, the beneficent creation which puts into the
spiritual life the same control of law that guides the
material life, which wisely makes me responsible,
that in the solemnity of that responsibility I am
bound to lift my brother up and never to drag my
brother down.

REPLY OF COLONEL INGERSOLL.

The first gentleman who replied to me took
the ground boldly that expression is not free —
that no man has the right to express his real
thoughts — and I suppose that he acted in accord
ance with that idea. How are you to know whether
he thought a solitary thing that he said, or not ?
How is it possible for us to ascertain whether he is
simply the mouthpiece of some other ? Whether
he is a free man, or whether he says that which he
does not believe, it is impossible for us to ascer
tain.

He tells you that I am about to take away the
religion of your mothers. I have heard that said a
great many times. No doubt Mr. Coudert has the
religion of his mother, and judging from the argu
ment he made, his mother knew at least as much
about these questions as her son. I believe that
every good father and good mother wants to see the
son and the daughter climb higher upon the great
and splendid mount of thought than they reached.

(253)

254 THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION.

You never can honor your father by going around
swearing to his mistakes. You never can honor
your mother by saying that ignorance is blessed be
cause she did not know everything. I want to
honor my parents by finding out more than they
did.

There is another thing that I was a little astonish-

'ed at — that Mr. Coudert, knowing that he would be

in eternal felicity with his harp in his hand, seeing

me in the world of the damned, could yet grow

envious here to-night at my imaginary monument.

And he tells you — this Catholic — that Voltaire
was an exceedingly good Christian compared with
me. Do you know I am glad that I have compelled
a Catholic — one who does not believe he has the
right to express his honest thoughts — to pay a com
pliment to Voltaire simply because he thought it
was at my expense ?

I have an almost infinite admiration for Voltaire ;
and when I hear that name pronounced, I think of a
plume floating over a mailed knight — I think of a
man that rode to the beleaguered City of Catholicism
and demanded a surrender — I think of a great man
who thrust the dagger of assassination into your
Mother Church, and from that wound she never will
recover.

THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION. 255

One word more. This gentleman says that
children are destructive — that the first thing they do
is to destroy their bibs. The gentleman, I should
think from his talk, has preserved his !

They talk about blasphemy. What is blasphemy ?
Let us be honest with each other. Whoever lives
upon the unpaid labor of others is a blasphemer.
Whoever slanders, maligns, and betrays is a blas
phemer. Whoever denies to others the rights that
he claims for himself is a blasphemer.

Who is a worshiper ? One who makes a happy
home — one who fills the lives of wife and children
with sunlight — one who has a heart where the
flowers of kindness burst into blossom and fill the
air with perfume — the man who sits beside his wife,
prematurely old and wasted, and holds her thin
hands in his and kisses them as passionately and
loves her as truly and as rapturously as when she
was a bride — he is a worshiper — that is worship.

And the gentleman brought forward as a reason
why we should not have free speech, that only a
few years ago some of the best men in the world, if
you said a word in favor of liberty, would shoot you
down. What an argument was that ! They were
not good men. They were the whippers of women
and the stealers of babes — robbers of the trundle-

256 THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION.

bed — assassins of human liberty. They knew no
better, but I do not propose to follow the example
of a barbarian because he was honestly a barbarian.

So much for debauching his family by telling
them that his precepts are false. If he has taught
them as he has taught us to-night, he has debauched
their minds. I would be honest at the cradle. I
would not tell a child anything as a certainty that I
did not know. I would be absolutely honest.

But he says that thought is absolutely free — no
body can control thought. Let me tell him : Super
stition is the jailer of the mind. You can so stuff
a child with superstition that its poor little brain is a
bastile and its poor little soul a convict. Fear is the
jailer of the mind, and superstition is the assassin of
liberty.

So when anybody goes into his family and tells
these great and shining truths, instead of debauch
ing his children they will kill the snakes that crawl
in their cradles. Let us be honest and free.

And now, coming to the second gentleman. He
is a Protestant. The Catholic Church says : " Don't
think ; pay your fare ; this is a through ticket, and
we will look out for your baggage." The Protestant
Church says: "Read that Bible for yourselves;
think for yourselves ; but if you do not come to a

THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION. 257

right conclusion you will be eternally damned."
Any sensible man will say, " Then I won't read it —
I'll believe it without reading it." And that is the
only way you can be sure you will believe it ; don't
read it.

Governor Woodford says that we are responsible
for our thoughts. Why ? Could you help thinking
as you did on this subject ? No, Could you help
believing the Bible ? I suppose not. Could you
help believing that story of Jonah ? Certainly not —
it looks reasonable in Brooklyn.

I stated that thought was the result of the impres
sions of nature upon the mind through the medium
of the senses. He says you cannot have thought
without memory. How did you get the first one ?

Of course I intended to be understood — and the
language is clear — that there could be no thought
except through the impressions made upon the brain
by nature through the avenues called the senses.
Take away the senses, how would you think then ?
If you thought at all, I think you would agree with
Mr. Coudert.

Now, I admit — so we need never have a con
tradiction about it — I admit that every human being
is responsible to the person he injures. If he in
jures any man, woman, or child, or any dog, or the

258 THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION.

lowest animal that crawls, he is responsible to that
animal, to that being — in other words, he is respon
sible to any being that he has injured.

But you cannot injure an infinite Being, if there
be one. I will tell you why. You cannot help
him, and you cannot hurt him. If there be an in
finite Being, he is conditionless — he does not want
anything — he has it. You cannot help anybody
that does not want something — you cannot help
him. You cannot hurt anybody unless he is a con
ditioned being and you change his condition so as
to inflict a harm. But if God be conditionless, you
cannot hurt him, and you cannot help him. So do
not trouble yourselves about the Infinite. All our
duties lie within reach — all our duties are right here ;
and my religion is simply this :

First. Give to every other human being every
right that you claim for yourself.

Second. If you tell your thought at all, tell your
honest thought. Do not be a parrot — do not be an
instrumentality for an organization. Tell your own
thought, honor bright, what you think.

My next idea is, that the only possible good in
the universe is happiness. The time to be happy is
now. The place to be happy is here. The way to
be happy is to try and make somebody else so.

THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION. 259

My good friend General Woodford — and he is a
good man telling the best he knows — says that I
will be accountable at the bar up yonder. I am
ready to settle that account now, and expect to be,
every moment of my life — and when that settlement
comes, if it does come, I do not believe that a soli
tary being can rise and say that I ever injured him
or her.

But no matter what they say. Let me tell you a
story, how we will settle if we do get there.

You remember the story told about the Mexican
who believed that his country was the only one in
the world, and said so. The priest told him that
there was another country where a man lived who
was eleven or twelve feet high, that made the whole
world, and if he denied it, when that man got hold of
him he would not leave a whole bone in his body.
But he denied it. He was one of those men who
would not believe further than his vision extended.

So one day in his boat,he was rocking away when
the wind suddenly arose and he was blown out of
sight of his home. After several days he was
blown so far that he saw the shores of another
country. Then he said, " My Lord ; I am gone ! I
have been swearing all my life that there was no
other country, and here it is ! " So he did his best

26O THE LIMITATIONS OF TOLERATION.

— paddled with what little strength he had left,
reached the shore, and got out of his boat. Sure
enough, there came down a man to meet him about
twelve feet high. The poor little wretch was fright
ened almost to death, so he said to the tall man as
he saw him coming down : " Mister, whoever you
are, I denied your existence — I did not believe you
lived ; I swore there was no such country as this ;
but I see I was mistaken, and I am gone. You are
going to kill me, and the quicker you do it the bet
ter and get me out of my misery. Do it now !"

The great man just looked at the little fellow, and
said nothing, till he asked, " What are you going to
do with me, because over in that other country I
denied your existence ? " " What am I going to do
with you ? " said the supposed God. " Now that you
have got here, if you behave yourself I am going to
treat you well."

A CHRISTMAS SERMON.

A CHRISTMAS SERMON.*

CHAPTER I.

THE good part of Christmas is not always Chris
tian — it is generally Pagan ; that is to say,
human, natural.

Christianity did not come with tidings of great joy,
but with a message of eternal grief. It came with
the threat of everlasting torture on its lips. It meant
war on earth and perdition hereafter.

It taught some good things — the beauty of love and
kindness in man. But as a torch-bearer, as abringer
of joy, it has been a failure. It has given infinite
consequences to the acts of finite beings, crushing
the soul with a responsibility too great for mortals
to bear. It has filled the future with fear and flame,
and made God the keeper of an eternal penitentiary,
destined to be the home of nearly all the sons of
men. Not satisfied with that, it has deprived God of
the pardoning power.

• This is the famous Christmas Sermon written by Colonel Ingersoll and printed in
the Evening Telegram, on December 19, 1891.

In answer to this ' ' Christmas Sermon ' ' the Rev. Dr. J. M. Buckley, editor of the
Christian Advocate, the recognized organ of the Methodist Church, wrote an arti
cle, calling upon the public to boycott the Evening Telegram for publishing such
a "sermon.1'

This attack was headed ' ' Lies That Are Mountainous.' ' The Telegram promptly
accepted the issue raised by Dr. Buckley and dared him to do his utmost. On the
very same day it published an answer from Colonel Ingersoll that echoed through
out America. (263)

264 A CHRISTMAS SERMON.

And yet it may have done some good by borrowing
from the Pagan world the old festival called Christmas.

Long before Christ was born the Sun-God tri
umphed over the powers of Darkness. About the
time that we call Christmas the days begin percepti
bly to lengthen. Our barbarian ancestors were wor
shipers of the sun, and they celebrated his victory
over the hosts of night. Such a festival was natural
and beautiful. The most natural of all religions is
the worship of the sun. Christianity adopted this
festival. It borrowed from the Pagans the best it has.

I believe in Christmas and in every day that has
been set apart for joy. We in America have too
much work and not enough play. We are too much
like the English.

I think it was Heinrich Heine who said that he
thought a blaspheming Frenchman was a more pleas
ing object to God than a praying Englishman. We
take our joys too sadly. I am in favor of all the good
free days — the more the better.

Christmas is a good day to forgive and forget — a
good day to throw away prejudices and hatreds —
a good day to fill your heart and your house, and the
hearts and houses of others, with sunshine.

R. G INGERSOLL.

COL. INGERSOLL'S REPLY TO DR. BUCKLEY.

II.

WHENEVER an orthodox editor attacks an
unbeliever, look out for kindness, charity
and love.

The gentle editor of the Christian Advocate
charges me with having written three " gigantic
falsehoods," and he points them out as follows :

First — " Christianity did not come with tidings of
great joy; but with a message of eternal grief."

Second — " It [Christianity] has filled the future
with fear and flame, and made God the keeper of
an eternal penitentiary, destined to be the home of
nearly all the sons of men."

Third — " Not satisfied with that, it [Christianity]
has deprived God of the pardoning power."

Now, let us take up these " gigantic falsehoods" in
their order and see whether they are in accord with
the New Testament or not — whether they are sup
ported by the creed of the Methodist Church.

I insist that Christianity did not come with tidings
of great joy, but with a message of eternal grief.

266 A CHRISTMAS SERMON.

According to the orthodox creeds, Christianity
came with the tidings that the human race was
totally depraved, and that all men were in a lost con
dition, and that all who rejected or failed to believe
the new religion, would be tormented in eternal
fire.

These were not " tidings of great joy."

If the passengers on some great ship were told
that the ship was to be wrecked, that a few would
be saved and that nearly all would go to the bot
tom, would they talk about " tidings of great joy " ?
It is to be presumed that Christ knew what his mis
sion was, and what he came for. He says : " Think
not that I am come to send peace on earth ; I
came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come
to set a man at variance against his father, and the
daughter against her mother." In my judgment, these
are not "tidings of great joy."

Now, as to the message of eternal grief:

"Then shall he say also unto them on the left
hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire
prepared for the devil and his angels."

"And these shall go away into everlasting pun
ishment ; but the righteous [meaning the Methodists]
into life eternal."

" He that believeth not shall be damned."

A CHRISTMAS SERMON. 267

" He that believeth not the Son shall not see life ;
but the wrath of God abideth on him."

" Fear not them which kill the body, but are not
able to kill the soul ; but rather fear him which is able
to destroy both soul and body in hell."

"And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up
forever and ever."

Knowing, as we do, that but few people have
been believers, that during the last eighteen hundred
years not one in a hundred has died in the faith, and
that consequently nearly all the dead are in hell, it
can truthfully be said that Christianity came with a
message of eternal grief.

Now, as to the second " gigantic falsehood," to the
effect that Christianity filled the future with fear
and flame, and made God the keeper of an eternal
penitentiary, destined to be the home of nearly all
the sons of men.

In the Old Testament there is nothing about
punishment in some other world, nothing about the
flames and torments of hell. When Jehovah killed
one of his enemies he was satisfied. His revenge
was glutted when the victim was dead. The Old
Testament gave the future to sleep and oblivion.
But in the New Testament we are told that the
punishment in another world is everlasting, and that

268 A CHRISTMAS SERMON.

" the smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever
and ever."

This awful doctrine, these frightful texts, filled
the future with fear and flame. Building on these
passages, the orthodox churches have constructed a
penitentiary, in which nearly all the sons of men are
to be imprisoned and tormented forever, and of this
prison God is the keeper. The doors are opened
only to receive.

The doctrine of eternal punishment is the infamy
of infamies. As I have often said, the man who be
lieves in eternal torment, in the justice of endless
pain, is suffering from at least two diseases — petri
faction of the heart and putrefaction of the brain.

The next question is whether Christianity has
deprived God of the pardoning power.

The Methodist Church and every orthodox church
teaches that this life is a period of probation ; that
there is no chance given for reformation after death ;
that God gives no opportunity to repent in another
world.

This is the doctrine of the Christian world. If
this dogma be true, then God will never release a
soul from hell — the pardoning power will never be
exercised.

How happy God will be and how happy all the

A CHRISTMAS SERMON. 269

saved will be, knowing that billions and billions of
his children, of their fathers, mothers, brothers,
sisters, wives, and children are convicts in the eternal
dungeons, and that the words of pardon will never
be spoken !

Yet this is in accordance with the promise con
tained in the New Testament, of happiness here and
eternal joy hereafter,to those who would desert breth
ren or sisters, or father or mother, or wife or children.

It seems to me clear that Christianity did not
bring " tidings of great joy," but that it came with a
" message of eternal grief" — that it did " fill the future
with fear and flame," that it did make God "the
keeper of an eternal penitentiary," that the peniten
tiary " was destined to be the home of nearly all the
sons of men," and that " it deprived God of the par
doning power."

Of course you can find passages full of peace, in
the Bible, others of war — some filled with mercy, and
others cruel as the fangs of a wild beast.

According to the Methodists, God has an eternal
prison — an everlasting Siberia. There is to be an
eternity of grief, of agony and shame.

What do I think of what the Doctor says about
the Telegram for having published my Christmas
sermon ?

27O A CHRISTMAS SERMON.

The editor of the Christian Advocate has no idea
of what intellectual liberty means. He ought to
know that a man should not be insulted because
another man disagrees with him.

What right has Dr. Buckley to disagree with
Cardinal Gibbons, and what right has Cardinal
Gibbons to disagree with Dr. Buckley ? The
same right that I have to disagree with them
both.

I do not warn people against reading Catholic or
Methodist papers or books. But I do tell them to
investigate for themselves — to stand by what they
believe to be true, to deny the false, and, above all
things, to preserve their mental manhood. The good
Doctor wants the Telegram destroyed — wants all
religious people to unite for the purpose of punishing
the Telegram — because it published something with
which the reverend Doctor does not agree, or rather
that does not agree with the Doctor.

It is too late. That day has faded in the West of
the past. The doctor of theology has lost his power.
Theological thunder has lost its lightning — it is
nothing now but noise, pleasing those who make it
and amusing those who hear.

The Telegram has nothing to fear. It is, in the
highest sense, a newspaper — wide-awake, alive, al-

A CHRISTMAS SERMON. 27 I

ways on time, good to its friends, fair with its enemies,
and true to the public.

What have I to say to the Doctor's personal
abuse ?

Nothing. A man may call me a devil, or the
devil, or he may say that I am incapable of telling
the truth, or that I tell lies, and yet all this proves
nothing. My arguments remain unanswered.

I cannot afford to call Dr. Buckley names. I
have good mental manners. The cause I represent
(in part) is too great, too sacred, to be stained by an
ignorant or a malicious personality.

I know that men do as they must with the light
they have, and so I say — More light !

REPLY TO

REV. J. M. KING AND REV. THOMAS DIXON, JR.

III.

""*HE Rev. James M. King — who seems to have
A taken this occasion to become known — finds
fault because " blasphemous utterances concerning
Christmas " were published in the Telegram, and
were allowed "to greet the eyes of innocent chil
dren and pure women."

How is it possible to blaspheme a day ? One
day is not, in and of itself, holier than another — that
is to say, two equal spaces of time are substantially
alike. We call a day " good " or " bad " according
to what happens in the day. A day filled with hap
piness, with kind words, with noble deeds, is a good
day. A day filled with misfortunes and anger and
misery we call a bad day. But how is it possible to
blaspheme a day ?

A man may or may not believe that Christ was
born on the 25th of December, and yet he may fill

(878)

A CHRISTMAS SERMON. 273

that day, so far as he is concerned, with good
thoughts and words and deeds. Another may really
believe that Christ was born on that day, and yet do
his worst to make all his friends unhappy. But how
can the rights of what are called " clean families " be
violated by reading the honest opinions of others as
to whether Christmas is kept in honor of the birth of
Christ,or in honor of the triumph of the sun over the
hosts of darkness ? Are Christian families so weak
intellectually that they cannot bear to hear the other
side ? Or is their case so weak that the slightest
evidence overthrows it ? Why do all these ministers
insist that it is ill-bred to even raise a question as to
the truth of the improbable, or as to the improbabil
ity of the impossible ?

A minister says to me that I am going to hell —
that I am bound to be punished forever and ever —
and thereupon I say to him : " There is no hell ;
you are mistaken ; your Bible is not inspired ; no
human being is to suffer agony forever ; " and there
upon, with an injured look, he asks me this ques
tion : " Why do you hurt my feelings ? " It does
not occur to him that I have the slightest right to
object to his sentence of eternal grief.

Does the gentleman imagine that true men and
pure women cannot differ with him ? There are

274 A CHRISTMAS SERMON.

many thousands of people who love and honor the
memory of Jesus Christ,who yet have not the slight
est belief in his divine origin, and who do not for
one moment imagine that he was other than a good
and heroic man. And there are thousands of peo
ple who admire the character of Jesus Christ who do
not believe that he ever existed — who admire the
character of Christ as they admire Imogen, or Per-
dita, not believing that any of the characters men
tioned actually lived.

And it may be well enough here to state that no
human being hates any really good man or good
woman — that is, no human being hates a man known
to be good — a woman known to be pure and good.
No human being hates a lovable character.

It is perfectly easy for any one with the slightest
imagination to understand how other people differ
from him. I do not attribute a bad motive to a man
simply because he disagrees with me. I do not say
that a man is a Christian or a Mohammedan " for
revenue only." I do not say that a man joins the
Democratic party simply for office, or that he
marches with the Republicans simply for position. I
am willing to hear his reasons — with his motives I
have nothing to do.

Mr. King imagines that I have denounced Chris-

A CHRISTMAS SERMON. 2/5

tianity " for revenue only." Is he willing to admit
that we have drifted so far from orthodox religion
that the way to make money is to denounce Christi
anity ? I can hardly believe, for joy, that liberty of
thought has advanced so far. I regret exceedingly
that there is not an absolute foundation for his re
mark. I am indeed sorry that it is possible in this
world of ours for any human being to make a living
out of the ignorance and fear of his fellow-men.
Still, it gives me great hope for the future to read,
even in this ignorant present, that there is one man,
and that man myself, who advocates human liberty
— the absolute enfranchisement of the soul — and does
it " for revenue " — because this charge is such a
splendid compliment to my fellow-men.

Possibly the remark of the Rev. Mr. King will be
gratifying to the Telegram and will satisfy that
brave and progressive sheet that it is in harmony
with the intelligence of the age.

My opinion is that the Telegram will receive the
praise of enlightened and generous people.

Personally I judge a man not so much by his the
ories as by his practice, and I would much rather
meet on the desert — were I about to perish for want
of water — a Mohammedan who would give me a
drink than a Christian who would not ; because,

276 A CHRISTMAS SERMON.

after all is said and done, we are compelled to judge
people by their actions.

I do not know what takes place in the invisible
world called the brain, inhabited by the invisible
something we call the mind. All that takes place
there is invisible and soundless. This mind, hidden
in this brain, masked by flesh, remains forever un
seen, and the only evidence we can possibly have as
to what occurs in that world, we obtain from the ac
tions of the man, of the woman. By these actions
we judge of the character, of the soul. So I make
up my mind as to whether a man is good or bad, not
by his theories, but by his actions.

Under no circumstances can the expression of an
honest opinion, couched in becoming language,
amount to blasphemy. And right here it may be
well enough to inquire : What is blasphemy ?

A man who knowingly assaults the true, who
knowingly endeavors to stain the pure, who know
ingly maligns the good and noble, is a blasphemer.
A man who deserts the truth because it is unpopular
is a blasphemer. He who runs with the hounds
knowing that the hare is in the right is a blasphemer.

In the soul of every man, or in the temple inhab
ited by the soul, there is one niche in which can be
found the statue of the ideal. In the presence of

A CHRISTMAS SERMON. 2/7

this statue the good man worships—the bad man
blasphemes — that is to say, he is not true to the
ideal.

A man who slanders a pure woman or an honest
man is a blasphemer. So, too, a man who does not
give the honest transcript of his mind is a blas
phemer. If a man really thinks the character of
Jehovah, as portrayed in the Old Testament, is good,
and he denounces Jehovah as bad, he is a blas
phemer. If he really believes that the character of
Jehovah, as portrayed in the Old Testament, is bad,
and he pronounces it good, he is a blasphemer and
a coward.

All laws against "blasphemy" have been passed
by the numerically strong and intellectually weak.
These laws have been passed by those who, finding
no help in logic, appealed to the legislature.

Back of all these superstitions you will find some
self-interest. I do not say that this is true in every
case, but I do say that if priests had not been fond
of mutton, lambs never would have been sacrificed
to God. Nothing was ever carried to the temple
that the priest could not use, and it always 'so hap
pened that God wanted what his agents liked.

Now, I will not say that all priests have been
priests " for revenue only," but I must say that the

778 A CHRISTMAS SERMON.

history of the world tends to show that the sacerdo
tal class prefer revenue without religion to religion
without revenue.

I am much obliged to the Rev. Mr. King for ad
mitting that an infidel has a right to publish his
views at his own expense, and with the utmost
cheerfulness I accord that right to a Christian. The
only thing I have ever objected to is the publication
of his views at the expense of others.

I cannot admit, however, that the ideas contained
in what is known as the Christmas Sermon are " re
volting to a vast majority of the people who give
character to the community in which we live." I
suppose that a very large majority of men and
women who disagree with me are perfectly satisfied
that I have the right to disagree with them, and that
I do not disagree with them to any greater degree
than they disagree with me. And I also imagine
that a very large majority of intelligent people are
perfectly willing to hear the other side.

I do not regard religious opinions or political
opinions as exotics that have to be kept under glass,
protected from the frosts of common sense or the
tyrannous north wind of logic. Such plants are
hardly worth preserving. They certainly ought to
be hardy enough to stand the climate of free discus-

A CHRISTMAS SERMON. 279

sion, and if they cannot, the sooner they die the
better.

I do not think there was anything blasphemous or
impure in the words published by the Telegram.
The most that can possibly be said against them,
calculated to excite the prejudice of Christians, is
that they were true — that they cannot be answered
except by abuse.

It is not possible, in this day and generation, to
stay the rising flood of intellectual freedom by keep
ing the names of thinkers out of print. The church
has had the field for eighteen hundred years. For
most of this time it has held the sword and purse of
the world. For many centuries it controlled colleges
and universities and schools. It had within its gift
wealth and honor. It held the keys, so far as this
world is concerned, of heaven and hell — that is to
say, of prosperity and misfortune. It pursued its
enemies even to the grave. It reddened the scaffold
with the best blood, and kept the sword of persecu
tion wet for many centuries. Thousands and thou
sands have died in its dungeons. Millions of
reputations have been blasted by its slanders. It
has made millions of widows and orphans, and it has
not only ruled this world, but it has pretended to
hold the keys of eternity, and under this pretence

280 A CHRISTMAS SERMON.

it has sentenced countless millions to eternal
flames.

At last the spirit of independence rose against its
monstrous assumptions. It has been growing some
what weaker. It has been for many years gradually
losing its power. The sword of the state belongs
now to the people. The partnership between altar
and throne has in many countries been dissolved.
The adulterous marriage of church and state has
ceased to exist. Men are beginning to express their
honest thoughts. In the arena where speech is free,
superstition is driven to the wall. Man relies more
and more on the facts in nature, and the real priest
is the interpreter of nature. The pulpit is losing its
power. In a little while religion will take its place
with astrology, with the black art, and its ministers
will take rank with magicians and sleight-of-hand
performers.

With regard to the letter of the Rev. Thomas
Dixon, Jr., I have but little to say.

I am glad that he believes in a free platform and a
free press — that he, like Lucretia Mott, believes in
"truth for authority, and not authority for truth."
At the same time I do not see how the fact that I
am not a scientist has the slightest bearing upon the
question ; but if there is any fact that I have avoided

A CHRISTMAS SERMON. 28 1

or misstated, then I wish that fact to be pointed out.
I admit also, that I am a " sentimentalist " — that is,
that I am governed, to a certain extent, by sentiment
— that my mind is so that cruelty is revolting1 and
that mercy excites my love and admiration. I admit
that I am so much of" a sentimentalist " that I have no
love for the Jehovah of the Old Testament, and that
it is impossible for me to believe a creed that fills the
prison house of hell with countless billions of men,
women and children.

I am also glad that the reverend gentleman admits
that I have " stabbed to the heart hundreds of super
stitions and lies," and I hope to stab many, many
more, and if I succeed in stabbing all lies to the heart
there will be no foundation left for what I called
"orthodox" Christianity — but goodness will survive,
justice will live, and the flower of mercy will shed
its perfume forever.

When we take into consideration the fact that the
Rev. Mr. Dixon is a minister and believes that he is
called upon to deliver to the people a divine message,
I do not wonder that he makes the following asser
tion : " If God could choose Balaam's ass to speak a
divine message, I do not see why he could not utilize
the Colonel." It is natural for a man to justify him
self and to defend his own occupation. Mr, Dixon,

282 A CHRISTMAS SERMON.

however, will remember that the ass was much su
perior to the prophet of God, and that the argument
was all on the side of the ass. And, furthermore,
that the spiritual discernment of the ass far exceeded
that of the prophet. It was the ass who saw the
angel when the prophet's eye was dim. I suggest to
the Rev. Mr. Dixon that he read the account once
more, and he will find —

First, that the ass first saw the angel of the Lord ;
second, that the prophet Balaam was cruel, unrea
sonable, and brutal ; third, that the prophet so lost
his temper that he wanted to kill the innocent ass,
and the ass, not losing her temper, reasoned with the
prophet and demonstrated not only her intellectual
but her moral superiority. In addition to all this the
angel of the Lord had to open the eyes of the prophet
— in other words, had to work a miracle — in order to
make the prophet equal to the ass, and not only so,
but rebuked him for his cruelty. And this same
angel admitted that without any miracle whatever
the ass saw him — the angel — showing that the spirit
ual discernment of the ass in those days was far su
perior to that of the prophet.

I regret that the Rev. Mr, King loses his temper
and that the Rev. Mr. Dixon is not quite polite.

All of us should remember that passion clouds the

A CHRISTMAS SERMON. 283

judgment, and that he who seeks for victory loses
sight of the cause.

And there is another thing : He who has absolute
confidence in the justice of his position can afford to
be good-natured. Strength is the foundation of
kindness ; weakness is often malignant, and when
argument fails passion comes to the rescue.

Let us be good-natured. Let us have respect for
the rights of each other.

The course pursued by the Telegram is worthy of
all praise. It has not only been just to both sides,
but it has been — as is its custom — true to the public.

ROBERT G. INGERSOLL.

IV.

To the Editor of the Evening Telegram :

SOME of the gentlemen who have given their
ideas through the columns of the Telegram have
wandered from the questions under discussion. It
may be well enough to state what is really in
dispute.

I was called to account for having stated that
Christianity did not bring " tidings of great joy," but
a message of eternal grief — that it filled the future
with fear and flame — made God the keeper of an
eternal penitentiary, in which most of the children
of men were to be imprisoned forever, and that, not
satisfied with that, it had deprived God of the par
doning power.

These statements were called " mountainous lies "
by the Rev. Dr. Buckley, and because the Telegram
had published the " Christmas Sermon " containing
these statements, he insisted that such a paper

(384)

A CHRISTMAS SERMON.

should not be allowed in the families of Christians or
of Jews — in other words, that the Telegram should
be punished, and that good people should refuse to
allow that sheet to come into their homes.

It will probably be admitted by all fair-minded
people that if the orthodox creeds be true, then
Christianity was and is the bearer of a message of
eternal grief, and a large majority of the human race
are to become eternal convicts, and God has de
prived himself of the pardoning power. According
to those creeds, no word of mercy to any of the lost
can ever fall from the lips of the Infinite.

The Universalists deny that such was or is the
real message of Christianity. They insist that all
are finally to be saved. If that doctrine be true,
then I admit that Christianity came with " tidings of
great joy."

Personally I have no quarrel with the Univer-
salist Church. I have no quarrel with any creed
that expresses hope for all of the human race. I
find fault with no one for filling the future with joy
— for dreaming splendid dreams and for uttering
splendid prophecies. I do not object to Christianity
because it promises heaven to a few, but because it
threatens the many with perdition.

It does not seem possible to me that a God who

286 A CHRISTMAS SERMON.

loved men to that degree that he died that they
might be saved, abandons his children the moment
they are dead. It seems to me that an infinite God
might do something for a soul after it has reached
the other world.

Is it possible that infinite wisdom can do no more
than is done for a majority of souls in this world ?

Think of the millions born in ignorance and filth,
raised in poverty and crime. Think of the millions
who are only partially developed in this world.
Think of the weakness of the will, of the power of
passion. Think of the temptations innumerable.
Think, too, of the tyranny of man, of the arrogance
of wealth and position, of the sufferings of the weak
— and can we then say that an infinite God has done,
in this world, all that could be done for the salvation
of his children ? Is it not barely possible that some
thing may be done in another world ? Is there noth
ing left for God to do for a poor, ignorant, criminal
human soul after it leaves this world ? Can God do
nothing except to pronounce the sentence of eternal
pain ?

I insist that if the orthodox creed be true, Christi
anity did not come with "tidings of great joy," but
that its message was and is one of eternal grief.

If the orthodox creed be true, the universe is a

A CHRISTMAS SERMON. 287

vast blunder — an infinite crime. Better, a thousand
times, that every pulse of life should cease — better
that all the gods should fall palsied from their
thrones, than that the creed of Christendom should
be true.

There is another question and that involves the
freedom of the press.

The Telegram has acted with the utmost fairness
and with the highest courage. After all, the Amer
ican people admire the man who takes his stand and
bravely meets all comers. To be an instrumentality
of progress, the press must be free. Only the free
can carry a torch. Liberty sheds light.

The editor or manager of a newspaper occupies a
public position, and he must not treat his patrons as
though they were weak and ignorant children. He
must not, in the supposed interest of any ism, sup
press the truth — neither must he be dictated to by
any church or any society of believers or unbelievers.
The Telegram, by its course, has given a certifi
cate of its manliness, and the public, by its course,
has certified that it appreciates true courage.

All Christians should remember that facts are not
sectarian, and that the sciences are not bound by the
creeds. We should remember that there are no
such things as Methodist mathematics, or Baptist

288 A CHRISTMAS SERMON.

botany, or Catholic chemistry. The sciences are
secular.

The Rev. Mr. Peters seems to have mistaken the
issues — and yet, in some things, I agree with him.
He is certainly right when he says that " Mr. Buck
ley's cry to boycott the Telegram is unmanly and un-
American," but I am not certain that he is right
.when he says that it is un-Christian.

The church has not been in the habit of pursuing
enemies with kind words and charitable deeds. To
tell the truth, it has always been rather relentless.
It has preached forgiveness, but it has never for
given. There is in the history of Christendom no
instance where the church has extended the hand of
friendship to a man who denied the truth of its creed.

There is in the church no spirit — no climate — of
compromise. In the nature of things there can be
none, because the church claims that it is absolutely
right — that there is only one road leading to heaven.
It demands unconditional surrender. It will not
bear contradiction. It claims to have the absolute
truth. For these reasons it cannot consistently com
promise, any more than a mathematician could
change the multiplication table to meet the view of
some one who should deny that five times five are
twenty-five.

A CHRISTMAS SERMON. 289

The church does not give its opinion — it claims to
know — it demands belief. Honesty, industry, gen
erosity count for nothing in the absence of belief.
It has taught and still teaches that no man can
reach heaven simply through good and honest deeds.
It believes and teaches that the man who relies upon
himself will be eternally punished — and why should
the church forgive a man whom it thinks its God is
waiting somewhat impatiently to damn ?

The Rev. Mr. Peters asks — and probably honestly
thinks that the questions are pertinent to the issues
involved — " What has infidelity done for the world ?
What colleges, hospitals, and schools has it founded ?
What has it done for the elevation of public morals ?"
And he inquires what science or art has been orig
inated by infidelity. He asks how many slaves it
has liberated, how many inebriates it has reclaimed,
how many fallen women it has restored, and what it
did for the relief of the wounded and dying soldiers ;
and concludes by asking what life it ever assisted to
higher holiness, and what death it has evei' cheered.

Although these questions have nothing whatever
to do with the matters under discussion, still it may
be well enough to answer them.

It is cheerfully admitted that hospitals and asy
lums have been built by Christians in Christian

29O A CHRISTMAS SERMON.

countries, and it is also admitted that hospitals and
asylums have been built in countries not Christian ;
that there were such institutions in China thousands
of years before Christ was born, and that many
centuries before the establishment of any orthodox
church there were asylums on the banks of the
Nile — asylums for the old, the poor, the infirm — asy
lums for the blind and for the insane, and that the
Egyptians, even of those days, endeavored to cure
insanity with kindness and affection. The same is
true of India and probably of most ancient nations.

There has always been more or less humanity in
man — more or less goodness in the human heart.
So far as we know, mothers have always loved their
children. There must always have been more good
than evil, otherwise the human race would have
perished. The best things in the Christian religion
came from the heart of man. Pagan lips uttered
the sublimest of truths, and all ages have been re
deemed by honesty, heroism, and love.

But let me answer these questions in their order.

First — As to the schools.

It is most cheerfully admitted that the Catholics
have always been in favor of education — that is to
say, of education enough to make a Catholic out of
a heathen. It is also admitted that Protestants have

A CHRISTMAS SERMON. 2QI

always been in favor of enough education to make a
Protestant out of a Catholic. Many schools and
many colleges have been established for the spread
of what is called the Gospel and for the education of
the clergy. Presbyterians have founded schools for
the benefit of their creed. The Methodists have es
tablished colleges for the purpose of making Meth
odists. The same is true of nearly all the sects. As
a matter of fact, these schools have in many import
ant directions hindered rather than helped the
cause of real education. The pupils were not taught
to investigate for themselves. They were not al
lowed to think. They were told that thought is
dangerous. They were stuffed and crammed with
creeds — with the ideas of others. Their credulity
was applauded and their curiosity condemned. If
all the people had been educated in these sectarian
schools, all the people would have been far more
ignorant than they are. These schools have been,
and most of them still are, the enemies of higher
education, and just to the extenc that they are under
the control of theologians they are hindrances, and
just to the extent that they have become secularized
they have been and are a benefit.

Our public-school system is not Christian. It is
secular. Yet I admit that it never could have been

292 A CHRISTMAS SERMON.

established without the assistance of Christians —
neither could it have been supported without the as
sistance of others. But such is the value placed
upon education that people of nearly all denomina
tions, and of nearly all religions, and of nearly all
opinions, for the most part agree that the children of
a nation should be educated by the nation. Some
religious people are opposed to these schools be
cause they are not religious — because they do not
teach some creed — but a large majority of the peo
ple stand by the public schools as they are. These
schools are growing better and better, simply be
cause they are growing less and less theological,
more and more secular.

Infidelity, or agnosticism, or free thought, has in
sisted that only that should be taught in schools
which somebody knows or has good reason to
believe.

The greatest professors in our colleges to-day are
those who have the least confidence in the super
natural, and the schools that stand highest in the
estimation of the most intelligent are those that have
drifted farthest from the orthodox creeds. Free
thought has always been and ever must be the
friend of education. Without free thought there
can be no such thing — in the highest sense — as a

A CHRISTMAS SERMON. 293

school. Unless the mind is free, there are no
teachers and there are no pupils, in any just and
splendid sense.

The church has been and still is the enemy of
education, because it has been in favor of intellect
ual slavery, and the theological schools have been
what might be called the deformatories of the human
mind.

For instance : A man is graduated from an ortho
dox university. In this university he has studied
astronomy, and yet he believes that Joshua stopped
the sun. He has studied geology, and yet he asserts
the truth of the Mosaic cosmogony. He has studied
chemistry, and yet believes that water was turned
into wine. He has been taught the ordinary theory
of cause and effect, and at the same time he thor
oughly believes in the miraculous multiplication of
loaves and fishes. Can such an institution, with any
propriety, be called a seat of learning ? Can we not
say of such a university what Bruno said of Oxford :
" Learning is dead and Oxford is its widow."

Year after year the religious colleges are improv
ing — simply because they are becoming more and
more secular, less and less theological. Whether in
fidelity has founded universities or not, it can truth
fully be said that the spirit of investigation, the spirit

294 A CHRISTMAS SERMON.

of free thought, the attitude of mental independence,
contended for by those who are called infidels, have
made schools useful instead of hurtful.

Can it be shown that any infidel has ever raised
his voice against education ? Can there be found in
the literature of free thought one line against the en
lightenment of the human race? Has free thought
ever endeavored to hide or distort a fact ? Has it
not always appealed to the senses — to demonstration ?
It has not said, " He that hath ears to hear, let him
hear ;" but it has said, " He that hath brains to think,
let him think."

The object of a school should be to ascertain truth
in every direction, to the end that man may know
the conditions of happiness — and every school should
be absolutely free. No teacher should be bound by
anything except a perceived fact. He should not be
the slave of a creed, engaged in the business of en
slaving others.

So much for schools.

Second — As to public morals.

Christianity teaches that all offences can be for
given. Every church unconsciously allows people to
commit crimes on a credit. I do not mean by this
that any church consciously advocates immorality.
I most cheerfully admit that thousands and thousands

A CHRISTMAS SERMON. 2Q5

of ministers are endeavoring to do good — that they
are pure, self-denying men, trying to make this world
better. But there is a frightful defect in their phi
losophy. They say to the bank cashier : You must
not steal, you must not take a dollar — larceny is
wrong, it is contrary to all law, human and divine —
but if you do steal every cent in the bank, God will
as gladly, quickly forgive you in Canada as he will
in the United States. On the other hand, what is
called infidelity says : There is no being in the uni
verse who rewards, and there is no being who pun
ishes — every act has its consequences. If the act is
good, the consequences are good ; if the act is bad,
the consequences are bad ; and these consequences
must be borne by the actor. It says to every human
being : You must reap what you sow. There is no
reward, there is no punishment, but there are conse
quences, and these consequences are the invisible and
implacable police of nature. They cannot be avoided.
They cannot be bribed. No power can awe them,
and there is not gold enough in the world to make
them pause. Even a God cannot induce them to re
lease for one instant their victim.

This great truth is, in my judgment, the gospel of
morality. If all men knew that they must inevi
tably b«ar the consequences of their own actions — if

^9$ A CHRISTMAS SERMON.

they absolutely knew that they could not injure an
other without injuring themselves, the world, in my
judgment, would be far better than it is.

Free thought has attacked the morality of what is
called the atonement. The innocent should not suffer
for the guilty, and if the innocent does suffer for the
guilty, that cannot by any possibility justify the
guilty. The reason a thing is wrong is because it,
in some way, causes the innocent to suffer. This
being the very essence of wrong, how can the suffer
ing of innocence justify the guilty ? If there be a
world of joy, he who is worthy to enter that world
must be willing to carry his own burdens in this.

So much for morality.

Third — As to sciences and art.

I do not believe that we are indebted to Christi
anity for any science. I do not remember that one
science is mentioned in the New Testament. There
is not one word, so far as I remember, about educa
tion — nothing about any science, nothing about art.
The writers of the New Testament seem to have
thought that the world was about coming to an end.
This world was to be sacrificed absolutely to the next.
The affairs of this life were not worth speaking of.
All people were exhorted to prepare at once for the
other life.

A CHRISTMAS SERMON. 297

The sciences have advanced in the proportion that
they did not interfere with orthodox theology. To
the extent that they were supposed to interfere with
theology they have been obstructed and denounced.
Astronomy was found to be inconsistent with the
Scriptures, and the astronomers were imprisoned and
despised. Geology contradicted the Mosaic account,
and the geologists were denounced and persecuted.
Every step taken in astronomy was taken in spite of
the church, and every fact in geology had to fight its
way. The same is true as to the science of medicine.
The church wished to cure disease by necromancy,
by charm and prayer, and with the bones of the
saints. The church wished man to rely entirely
upon God — that is to say, upon the church — and not
upon himself. The physician interfered with the
power and prosperity of the priest, and those who
appealed to physicians were denounced as lacking
faith in God. This state of things existed even in
the Old Testament times. A king failed to send for
the prophets, but sent for a physician, and then
comes this piece of grim humor : " And Asa slept
with his fathers."

The great names in science are not those of
recognized saints.

BRUNO — one of the greatest and bravest of men —

298 A CHRISTMAS SERMON.

greatest of all martyrs — perished at the stake, be
cause he insisted on the existence of other worlds
and taught the astronomy of Galileo.

HUMBOLDT — in some respects the wisest man
known to the scientific world — denied the existence
of the supernatural and " the truths of revealed re
ligion," and yet he revolutionized the thought of his
day and left a legacy of intellectual glory to the race.

DARWIN — greatest of scientists — so great that our
time will probably be known as " Darwin's Century "
— had not the slightest confidence in any possible
phase of the so-called supernatural. This great man
left the creed of Christendom without a foundation.
He brought as witnesses against the inspiration of
the Scriptures such a multitude of facts, such an over
whelming amount of testimony, that it seems im
possible to me that any unprejudiced man can, after
hearing the testimony, remain a believer in evangeli
cal religion. He accomplished more than all the
schools, colleges, and universities that Christianity
has founded. He revolutionized the philosophy of
the civilized world.

The writers who have done most for science have
been the most bitterly opposed by the church.
There is hardly a valuable book in the libraries of
the world that cannot be found on the " Index Ex-

A CHRISTMAS SERMON. 299

purgatorius." Kant and Fichte and Spinoza were
far above and beyond the orthodox world. Voltaire
did more for freedom than any other man, and yet
the church denounced him with a fury amounting to
insanity — called him an atheist, although he believed
not only in God, but in special providence. He
was opposed to the church — that is to say, opposed
to slavery, and for that reason he was despised.

And what shall I say of D'Holbach, of Hume, of
Buckle, of Draper, of Haeckel, of Biichner, of Tyn-
dall and Huxley, of Auguste Comte, and hundreds
and thousands of others who have filled the scien
tific world with light and the heart of man with love
and kindness ?

It may be well enough, in regard to art, to say
that Christianity is indebted to Greece and Rome
for its highest conceptions, and it may be well to add
that fcr many centuries Christianity did the best it
could to destroy the priceless marbles of Greece and
Rome. A few were buried, and in that way were
saved from Christian fury.

The same is true of the literature of the classic
world. A few fragments were rescued, and these
became the seeds of modern literature. A few
statues were preserved, and they are to-day models
for all the world.

3OQ A CHRISTMAS SERMON.

Of course it will be admitted that there is much
art in Christian lands, because, in spite of the creeds,
Christians, so-called, have turned their attention to
this world. They have beautified their homes, they
have endeavored to clothe themselves in purple and
fine linen. They have been forced from banquets
or from luxury by the difficulty of camels going
through the eyes of needles or the impossibility of
carrying water to the rich man. They have culti
vated this world, and the arts have lived. Did they
obey the precepts that they find in their sacred
writings there would be no art, they would ' ' take no
thought for the morrow," they would " consider the
lilies of the field."

Fourth — As to the liberation of slaves.

It was exceedingly unfortunate for the Rev. Mr.
Peters that he spoke of slavery. The Bible upholds
human slavery — white slavery. The Bible was
quoted by all slaveholders and slave-traders. The
man who went to Africa to steal women and children
took the Bible with him. He planted himself firmly
on the Word of God. As Whittier says of White-
field :

" He bade the slave ship speed from coast to coast,
Fanned by the wings of the Holy Ghost."

So when the poor wretches were sold to the plant-

A CHRISTMAS SERMON. 30!

ers, the planters defended their action by reading
the Bible. When a poor woman was sold, her chil
dren torn from her breast, the auction block on which
she stood was the Bible ; the auctioneer who sold her
quoted the Scriptures ; the man who bought her re
peated the quotations, and the ministers from the
pulpit said to the weeping woman, as her child was
carried away : " Servants, be obedient unto your
masters."

Freethinkers in all ages have been opposed to
slavery. Thomas Paine did more for human liberty
than any other man who ever stood upon the west
ern world. The first article he ever wrote in this
country was one against the institution of slavery.
Freethinkers have also been in favor of free bodies.
Freethinkers have always said " free hands," and the
infidels, the wide world over, have been friends of
freedom.

Fifth— As to the reclamation of inebriates.

Much has been said, and for many years, on the
subject of temperance — much has been uttered by
priests and laymen — and yet there seems to be a
subtle relation between rum and religion. Scotland
is extremely orthodox, yet it is not extremely temper
ate. England is nothing if not religious, and London
is, par excellence, the Christian city of the world, and

302 A CHRISTMAS SERMON.

yet it is the most intemperate. The Mohammedans
— followers of a false prophet — do not drink.

Sixth — As to the humanity of infidelity.

Can it be said that people have cared for the
wounded and dying only because they were orthodox?

Is it not true that religion, in its efforts to prop
agate the creed of forgiveness by the sword, has
caused the death of more than one hundred and fifty
millions of human beings ? Is it not true that where
the church has cared for one orphan it has created
hundreds ? Can Christianity afford to speak of war ?

The Christian nations of the world to-day are
armed against each other. In Europe, all that can
be gathered by taxation — all that can be borrowed by
pledging the prosperity of the future — the labor of
those yet unborn — is used for the purpose of keeping
Christians in the field, to the end that they may de
stroy other Christians, or at least prevent other Chris
tians from destroying them. Europe is covered with
churches and fortifications, with temples and with
forts — hundreds of thousands of priests, millions of
soldiers, countless Bibles and countless bayonets —
and that whole country is oppressed and imooverished
for the purpose of carrying on war. The people have
become deformed by labor, and yet Christianity
boasts of peace.

A CHRISTMAS SERMON. 303

Seventh — " And what death has infidelity ever
cheered ?"

Is it possible for the orthodox Christian to cheer
the dying when the dying is told that there is a
world of eternal pain, and that he, unless he has been
forgiven, is to be an eternal convict ? Will it cheer
him to know that, even if he is to be saved, countless
millions are to be lost ? Is it possible for the Chris
tian religion to put a smile upon the face of death ?

On the other hand, what is called infidelity says to
the dying : What happens to you will happen to all.
If there be another world of joy, it is for all. If
there is another life, every human being will have
the eternal opportunity of doing ri^ht — the eternal
opportunity to live, to reform, to enjoy. There is no
monster in the sky. There is no Moloch who de
lights in the agony of his children. These frightful
things are savage dreams.

Infidelity puts out the fires of hell with the tears of

pity-
Infidelity puts the seven-hued arch of Hope over

every grave.

Let us then, gentlemen, come back to the real
questions under discussion. Let us not wander away,

ROBERT G. INGERSOLL.
Jariy g, 1891.

INGERSOLL CONTINUES THE BATTLE.

V.

NO one objects to the morality of Christianity.
The industrious people of the world — those
who have anything — are, as a rule, opposed to lar
ceny ; a very large majority of people object to be
ing murdered, and so we have laws against larceny
and murder. A large majority of people believe in
what they call, or what they understand to be, justice
— at least as between others. There is no very
great difference of opinion among civilized people as
to what is or is not moral.

It cannot truthfully be said that the man who attacks
Buddhism attacks all morality. He does not attack
goodness, justice, mercy, or anything that tends in
his judgment to the welfare of mankind ; but he at
tacks Buddhism. So one attacking what is called
Christianity does not attack kindness, charity, or any
virtue. He attacks something that has been added

(304)

A CHRISTMAS SERMON. 3O5

to the virtues. He does not attack the flower, but
what he believes to be the parasite.

If people, when they speak of Christianity, include
the virtues common to all religions, they should not
give Christianity credit for all the good that has been
done. There were millions of virtuous men and
women, millions of heroic and self-denying souls
before Christianity was known.

It does not seen possible to me that love, kind
ness, justice, or charity ever caused any one who
possessed and practiced these virtues to persecute
his fellow-man on account of a difference of belief.
If Christianity has persecuted, some reason must
exist outside of the virtues it has inculcated. If this
reason — this cause — is inherent in that something
else, which has been added to the ordinary virtues,
then Christianity can properly be held accountable
for the persecution. Of course back of Christianity
is the nature of man, and, primarily, it may be
responsible.

Is there anything in Christianity that will account
for such persecutions — for the Inquisition ? It cer
tainly was taught by the church that belief was
necessary to salvation, and it was thought at the same
time that the fate of man was eternal punishment ;
that the state of man was that of depravity, and that

306 A CHRISTMAS SERMON.

there was but one way by which he could be saved,
and that was through belief — through faith. As
long as this was honestly believed, Christians would
not allow heretics or infidels to preach a doctrine to
their wives, to their children, or to themselves
which, in their judgment, would result in the dam
nation of souls.

The law gives a father the right to kill one who is
about to do great bodily harm to his son. Now, if
a father has the right to take the life of a man
simply because he is attacking the body of his son,
how much more would he have the right to take the
life of one who was about to assassinate the soul of
his son !

Christians reasoned in this way. In addition to
this, they felt that God would hold the community
responsible if the community allowed a blasphemer
to attack the true religion. Therefore they killed
the freethinker, or rather the free talker, in self-de
fence.

At the bottom of religious persecution is the
doctrine of self-defence ; that is to say, the defence
of the soul. If the founder of Christianity had
plainly said : " It is not necessary to believe in
order to be saved ; it is only necessary to do, and
he who really loves his fellow-men, who is kind,

A CHRISTMAS SERMON. 307

honest, just and charitable, is to be forever blest " —
if he had only said that, there would probably have
been but little persecution.

If he had added to this : " You must not perse
cute in my name. The religion I teach is the Re
ligion of Love — not the Religion of Force and
Hatred. You must not imprison your fellow-men.
You must not stretch them upon racks, or crush
their bones in iron boots. You must not flay them
alive. You must not cut off their eyelids, or pour
molten lead into their ears. You must treat all
with absolute kindness. If you cannot convert
your neighbor by example, persuasion, argument,
that is the end. You must never resort to force,
and, whether he believes as you do or not, treat him
always with kindness" — his followers then would not
have murdered their fellows in his name.

If Christ was in fact God, he knew the persecu
tions that would be carried on in his name ; he
knew the millions that would suffer death through
torture ; and yet he died without saying one word
to prevent what he must have known, if he were
God, would happen.

All that Christianity has added to morality is
worthless and useless. Not only so — it has been
hurtful. Take Christianity from morality and the

308 A CHRISTMAS SERMON.

useful is left, but take morality from Christianity and
the useless remains.

Now, falling back on the old assertion, " By its
fruits we may know Christianity," then I think we
are justified in saying that, as Christianity consists
of a mixture of morality and something else, and as
morality never has persecuted a human being, and as
Christianity has persecuted millions, the cause of the
persecution must be the something else that was added
to morality.

I cannot agree with the reverend gentleman when
he says that " Christianity has taught mankind the
priceless value and dignity of human nature." On
the other hand, Christianity has taught that the whole
human race is by nature depraved, and that if God
should act in accordance with his sense of justice, all
the sons of men would be doomed to eternal pain.
Human nature has been derided, has been held up to
contempt and scorn, all our desires and passions de
nounced as wicked and filthy.

Dr. Da Costa asserts that Christianity has taught
mankind the value of freedom. It certainly has not
been the advocate of free thought ; and what is free
dom worth if the mind is to be enslaved ?

Dr. Da Costa knows that millions have been sacri
ficed in their efforts to be free ; that is, millions have

A CHRISTMAS SERMON. 309

been sacrificed for exercising their freedom as against
the church.

It is not true that the church " has taught and es
tablished the fact of human brotherhood." This has
been the result of a civilization to which Christianity
itself has been hostile.

Can we prove that " the church established human
brotherhood" by banishing the Jews from Spain ; by
driving out the Moors ; by the tortures of the Inquisi
tion ; by butchering the Covenanters of Scotland ; by
the burning of Bruno and Servetus ; by the persecu
tion of the Irish ; by whipping and hanging Quakers
in New England ; by the slave trade ; and by the
hundreds of wars waged in the name of Christ ?

We all know that the Bible upholds slavery in its
very worst and most cruel form ; and how it can be
said that a religion founded upon a Bible that upholds
the institution of slavery has taught and established
the fact of human brotherhood, is beyond my imagin
ation to conceive.

Neither do I think it true that " we are indebted
to Christianity for the advancement of science, art,
philosophy, letters and learning."

I cheerfully admit that we are indebted to Chris
tianity for some learning, and that the human mind
has been developed by the discussion of the absurdi-

3IO A CHRISTMAS SERMON.

ties of superstition. Certainly millions and millions
have had what might be called mental exercise, and
their minds may have been somewhat broadened by
the examination, even, of these absurdities, contra
dictions, and impossibilities. The church was not
the friend of science or learning when it burned
Vanini for writing his " Dialogues Concerning Na
ture." What shall we say of the " Index Expurgato-
rius " ? For hundreds of years all books of any par
ticular value were placed on the " Index," and good
Catholics forbidden to read them. Was this in favor
of science and learning ?

That we are indebted to Christianity for the ad
vancement of science seems absurd. What science ?
Christianity was certainly the enemy of astronomy,
and I believe that it was Mr. Draper who said that
astronomy took her revenge, so that not a star that
glitters in all the heavens bears a Christian name.

Can it be said that the church has been the friend
of geology, or of any true philosophy ? Let me show
how this is impossible.

The church accepts the Bible as an inspired book.
Then the only object is to find its meaning, and if
that meaning is opposed to any result that the human
mind may have reached, the meaning stands and
the result reached by the mind must be abandoned.

A CHRISTMAS SERMON. 311

For hundreds of years the Bible was the standard,
and whenever anything was asserted in any science
contrary to the Bible, the church immediately de
nounced the scientist. I admit the standard has been
changed, and ministers are very busy, not trying
to show that science does not agree with the Bible,
but that the Bible agrees with science.

Certainly Christianity has done little for art. The
early Christians destroyed all the marbles of Greece
and Rome upon which they could lay their violent
hands ; and nothing has been produced by the Chris
tian world equal to the fragments that were accident
ally preserved. There have been many artists who
were Christians ; but they were not artists because
they were Christians ; because there have been many
Christians who were not artists. It cannot be said
that art is born of any creed. The mode of expres
sion may be determined, and probably is to a certain
degree, by the belief of the artist ; but not his artis
tic perception and feeling.

So, Galileo did not make his discoveries because he
was a Christian, but in spite of it. His Bible was
the other way, and so was his creed. Consequently,
they could not by any possibility have assisted him.
Kepler did not discover or announce what are
known as the "Three Laws" because he was a

jl» A CHRISTMAS SERMON.

Christian ; but, as I said about Galileo, in spite of
his creed.

Every Christian who has really found out and
demonstrated and clung to a fact inconsistent with
the absolute inspiration of the Scriptures, has done
so certainly without the assistance of his creed.

Let me illustrate this : When our ancestors were
burning each other to please God ; when they were
ready to destroy a man with sword and flame for
teaching the rotundity of the world, the Moors in
Spain were teaching geography to their children
with brass globes. So, too, they had observatories
and knew something of the orbits of the stars.

They did not find out these things because they
were Mohammedans, or on account of their belief
in the impossible. They were far beyond the Chris
tians, intellectually, and it has been very poetically
said by Mrs. Browning, that " Science was thrust
into the brain of Europe on the point of a Moorish
lance."

From the Arabs we got our numerals, making
mathematics of the higher branches practical. We
also got from them the art of making cotton paper,
which is almost at the foundation of modern intelli -
gence. We learned from them to make cotton cloth,
making cleanliness possible in Christendom.

A CHRISTMAS SERMON. 313

So from among people of different religions we
have learned many useful things ; but they did not
discover them on account of their religion.

It will not do to say that the religion of Greece
was true because the Greeks were the greatest
sculptors. Neither is it an argument in favor of
monarchy that Shakespeare, the greatest of men,
was born and lived in a monarchy.

Dr. Da Costa takes one of the effects of a general
cause, or of a vast number of causes, and makes it
the cause, not only of other effects, but of the general
cause. He seems to think that all events for many
centuries, and especially all the good ones, were
caused by Christianity.

As a matter of fact, the civilization of our time is
the result of countless causes with which Christian
ity had little to do, except by way of hindrance.

Does the Doctor think that the material progress
of the world was caused by this passage : " Take no
thought for the morrow " ?

Does he seriously insist that the wealth of Chris
tendom rests on this inspired declaration : "It is
easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a
needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom oi
heaven "?

The Rev. Mr. Peters, in answer, takes the ground

314 A CHRISTMAS SERMON.

that the Bible has produced the richest and most
varied literature the world has ever seen.

This, I think, is hardly true. Has not most of
modern literature been produced in spite of the
Bible ? Did not Christians, for many generations,
take the ground that the Bible was the only import
ant book, and that books differing from the Bible
should be destroyed ?

If Christianity — Catholic and Protestant — could
have had its way, the works of Voltaire, Spinoza,
Hume, Paine, Humboldt, Darwin, Haeckel, Spen
cer, Comte, Huxley, Tyndall, Draper, Goethe, Gib
bon, Buckle and Buchner would not have been pub
lished. In short, the philosophy that enlightens and
the fiction that enriches the brain would not exist.

The greatest literature the world has ever seen is,
in my judgment, the poetic — the dramatic ; that is
to say, the literature of fiction in its widest sense.
Certainly if the church could have had control, the
plays of Shakespeare never would have been writ
ten ; the literature of the stage could not have
existed ; most works of fiction, and nearly all poetry,
would have perished in the brain. So I think it
hardly fair to say that " the Bible has produced the
richest and most varied literature the world has
ever seen/'

A CHRISTMAS SERMON. 31 5

Thousands of theological books have been written
on thousands of questions of no possible importance.
Libraries have been printed on subjects not worth
discussing — not worth thinking about — and that will,
in a few years, be regarded as puerile by the whole
world.

Mr. Peters, in his enthusiasm, asks this question :

" Who raised our great institutions of learning ?
Infidels never a stone of them ! "

Stephen Girard founded the best institution of
learning, the best charity, the noblest ever founded
in this or any other land ; and under the roof built
by his wisdom and his wealth many thousands of
orphans have been reared, clothed, fed and educated,
not only in books, but in avocations, and become
happy and useful citizens. Under his will there has
been distributed to the poor, fuel to the value of more
than $5oo,ooo ; and this distribution goes on year
after year.

One of the best observatories in the world was
built by the generosity of James Lick, an infidel. I
call attention to these two cases simply to show that
the gentleman is mistaken, and that he was some
what carried away by his zeal.

So, too, Mr. Peters takes the ground that " we are
indebted to Christianity for our chronology."

A CHRISTMAS SERMON.

According to Christianity this world has been
peopled about six thousand years. Christian chro
nology gives the age of the first man, and then
gives the line from father to son down to the flood,
and from the flood down to the coming of Christ,
showing that men have been upon the earth only
about six thousand years. This chronology is infi
nitely absurd, and I do not believe that there is an
intelligent, well-educated Christian in the world,
having examined the subject, who will say that the
Christian chronology is correct.

Neither can it, I think, truthfully be said that
" we are indebted to Christianity for the continuation
of history." The best modern historians of whom I
have any knowledge are Voltaire, Hume, Gibbon,
Buckle and Draper.

Neither can I admit that " we are indebted to
Christianity for natural philosophy."

I do not deny that some natural philosophers have
also been Christians, or, rather, that some Christians
have been natural philosophers to the extent that
their Christianity permitted. But Lamarck and Hum-
boldt and Darwin and Spencer and Haeckel and
Huxley and Tyndall have done far more for natural
philosophy than they have for orthodox religion.

Whoever believes in the miraculous must be the

A CHRISTMAS SERMON. 317

enemy of natural philosophy. To him there is some
thing above nature, liable to interfere with nature.
Such a man has two classes of ideas in his mind,
each inconsistent with the other. To the extent that
he believes in the supernatural he is incapacitated
for dealing with the natural, and to that extent fails
to be a philosopher. Philosophy does not include
the caprice of the Infinite. It is founded on the ab
solute integrity and invariability of nature.

Neither do I agree with the reverend gentleman
when he says that " we are indebted to Christianity
for our knowledge of philology."

The church taught for a long time that Hebrew
was the first language, and that other languages had
been derived from that ; and for hundreds and hun
dreds of years the efforts of philologists were arrested
simply because they started with that absurd assump
tion and believed in the Tower of Babel.

Christianity cannot now take the credit for " meta
physical research." It has always been the enemy
of metaphysical research. It never has said to any
human being, " Think !" It has always said, " Hear !"
It does not ask anybody to investigate. It lays down
certain doctrines as absolutely true, and, instead of
asking investigation, it threatens every investigator
with eternal pain. Metaphysical research is destroy-

3l8 A CHRISTMAS SERMON.

ing what has been called Christianity, and Christians
have always feared it.

This gentleman makes another mistake, and a
very common one. This is his argument : Christian
countries are the most intelligent ; therefore they
owe that intelligence to Christianity. Then the next
step is taken. Christianity, being the best, having
produced these results, must have been of divine
origin.

Let us see what this proves. There was a time
when Egypt was the first nation in the world. Could
not an Egyptian, at that time have used the same
arguments that Mr. Peters uses now, to prove that
the religion of Egypt was divine ? Could he not
then have said : " Egypt is the most intelligent, the
most civilized and the richest of all nations ; it has
been made so by its religion ; its religion is, there
fore, divine " ?

So there was a time when a Hindoo could have
made the same argument. Certainly this argument
could have been made by a Greek. It could have
been repeated by a Roman. And yet Mr. Peters
will not admit that the religion of Egypt was divine,
or that the mythology of Greece was true, or that
Jupiter was in fact a god.

Is it not evident to all that if the churches in Europe

A CHRISTMAS SERMON. 319

had been institutions of learning ; if the domes of
cathedrals had been observatories ; if priests had been
teachers of the facts in nature, the world would
have been far in advance of what it is to-day ?

Countries depend on something besides their re
ligion for progress. Nations with a good soil can
get along quite well with an exceedingly poor relig
ion ; and no religion yet has been good enough to
give wealth or happiness to human beings where
the climate and soil were bad and barren.

Religion supports nobody. It has to be sup
ported. It produces no wheat, no corn ; it ploughs
no land ; it fells no forests. It is a perpetual mend
icant. It lives on the labor of others, and then has
the arrogance to pretend that it supports the giver.

Mr. Peters makes this exceedingly strange state
ment : "Every discovery in science, invention and
art has been the work of Christian men. Infidels
have contributed their share, but never one of them
has reached the grandeur of originality."

This, I think, so far as invention is concerned, can
be answered with one name — John Ericsson, one of
the profoundest agnostics I ever met.

I am almost certain that Humboldt and Goethe
were original. Darwin was certainly regarded as
such.

32O A CHRISTMAS SERMON.

I do not wish to differ unnecessarily with Mr.
Peters, but I have some doubts about Morse having
been the inventor of the telegraph.

Neither can I admit that Christianity abolished
slavery. Many of the abolitionists in this country
were infidels ; many of them were Christians. But
the church itself did not stand for liberty. The
Quakers, I admit, were, as a rule, on the side of free
dom. But the Christians of New England perse
cuted these Quakers, whipped them from town to
town, lacerated their naked backs, and maimed their
bodies, not only, but took their lives.

Mr. Peters asks : " What name is there among
the world's emancipators after which you cannot
write the name ' Christian ? ' Well, let me give
him a few — Voltaire, Jefferson, Paine, Franklin,
Lincoln, Darwin.

Mr. Peters asks : " Why is it that in Christian
countries you find the greatest amount of physical
and intellectual liberty, the greatest freedom of
thought, speech, and action ? "

Is this true of all ? How about Spain and Portu
gal ? There is more infidelity in France than in
Spain, and there is far more liberty in France than
in Spain.

There is far more infidelity in England than there

A CHRISTMAS SERMON. 321

was a century ago, and there is far more liberty than
there was a century ago. There is far more infidel
ity in the United States than there was fifty years
ago, and a hundred infidels to-day where there was
one fifty years ago ; and there is far more intellectual
liberty, far greater freedom of speech and action,
than ever before.

A few years ago Italy was a Christian country to
the fullest extent. Now there are a thousand times
more liberty and a thousand times less religion.

Orthodoxy is dying ; Liberty is growing.

Mr. Ballou, a grandson, or grand-nephew, of Hosea
Ballou, seems to have wandered from the faith. As
a rule, Christians insist that when one denies the
religion of Christian parents he is an exceedingly
bad man, but when he denies the religion of parents
not Christians, and becomes a Christian, that he is a
very faithful, good and loving son.

Mr. Ballou insists that God has the same right to
punish us that Nature has, or that the State has. I
do not think he understands what I have said. The
State ought not to punish for the sake of punish
ment. The State may imprison, or inflict what is
called punishment, first, for its own protection, and,
secondly, for the reformation of the punished. If
no one could do the State any injury, certainly the

A CHRISTMAS SERMON.

State would have no right to punish under the plea
of protection ; and if no human being could by any
possibility be reformed, then the excuse of reforma
tion could not be gi^en.

Let us apply this : If God be infinite, no one can
injure him. Therefore he need not punish any
body or damn anybody or burn anybody for his
protection.

Let us take another step. Punishment being
justified only on two grounds — that is, the protection
of society and the reformation of the punished — how
can eternal punishment be justified ? In the first
place, God does not punish to protect himself, and,
in the second place, if the punishment is to be for
ever, he does not punish to reform the punished.
What excuse then is left ?

Let us take still another step. If, instead of pun
ishment, we say "consequences," and that every good
man has the right to reap the good consequences of
good actions, and that every bad man must bear the
consequences of bad actions, then you must say to the
good : If you stop doing good you will lose the har
vest. You must say to the bad : If you stop doing
bad you need not increase your burdens. And if it
be a fact in Nature that all must reap what they sow,
there is neither mercy nor cruelty in this fact, and I

A CHRISTMAS SERMON. 323

hold no God responsible for it. The trouble with the
Christian creed is that God is described as the one
who gives rewards and the one who inflicts eternal
pain.

There is still another trouble. This God, if infi
nite, must have known when he created man, exactly
who would be eternally damned. What right had
he to create men, knowing that they were to be
damned?

So much for Mr. Ballou.

The Rev. Dr. Hillier seems to reason in a kind of
circle. He takes the ground, in the first place, that
" infidelity, Christianity, science, and experience all
agree, without the slightest tremor of uncertainty,
in the inexorable law that whatsoever a man sows
that shall he also reap." He then takes the ground
that, " if we wish to be rid of the harvest, we must
not sow the seed ; if we would avoid the result, we
must remove the cause ; the only way to be rid of hell
is to stop doing evil ; that this, and this only, is the
way to abolish an eternal penitentiary."

Very good ; but that is not the point. The real
thing under discussion is this : Is this life a state of
probation, and if a man fails to live a good life here,
will he have no opportunity for reformation in an
other world, if there be one ? Can he cease to do

324 A CHRISTMAS SERMON.

evil in the eternal penitentiary ? and if he does, can
he be pardoned — can he be released ?

It is admitted that man must bear the consequences
of his acts. If the consequences are good, then the
acts are good. If the consequences are bad, the acts
are bad. Through experience we find that certain
acts tend to unhappiness and others to happiness.

Now, the only question is whether we have wis
dom enough to live in harmony with our conditions
here ; and if we fail here, will we have an opportu
nity of reforming in another world ? If not, then the
few years that we live here determine whether we
shall be angels or devils forever.

It seems to me, if there be another life, that in that life
men may do good, and men may do evil ; and if they
may do good it seems to me that they may reform.

I do not see why God, if there be one, should lose
all interest in his children, simply because they leave
this world and go where he is. Is it possible that
an infinite God does all for his children here, in this
poor ignorant world, that it is possible for him to
do, and that if he fails to reform them here, nothing
is left to do except to make them eternal convicts?

The Rev. Mr. Haldeman mistakes my position. I
do not admit that " an infinite God, as revealed in
Nature, has allowed men to grow up under conditions

A CHRISTMAS SERMON. 325

which no ordinary mortal can look at in all their con
centrated agony and not break his heart."

I do not confess that God reveals himself in Nature
as an infinite God, without mercy. I do not admit
that there is an infinite Being anywhere responsible
for the agonies and tears, for the barbarities and
horrors of this life. I cannot believe that there is in
the universe a Being with power to prevent these
things. I hold no God responsible. I attribute
neither cruelty nor mercy to Nature. Nature neither
weeps nor rejoices. I cannot believe that this world,
as it now is, as it has been, was created by an infi
nitely wise, powerful, and benevolent God. But it is
far better that we should all go down " with souls un
satisfied " to the dreamless grave, to the tongueless
silence of the voiceless dust, than that countless
millions of human souls should suffer forever.

Eternal sleep is better than eternal pain. Eternal
punishment is eternal revenge, and can be inflicted
only by an eternal monster.

Mr. George A. Locey endeavors to put his case in
an extremely small compass, and satisfies himself
with really one question, and that is : " If a man in
good health is stricken with disease, is assured that
a physician can cure him, but refuses to take the
medicine and dies, ought there to be any escape ?"

326 A CHRISTMAS SERMON.

He concludes that the physician has done his
duty ; that the patient was obdurate and suffered the
penalty.

The application he makes is this :

" The Christian's ' tidings of great joy ' is the mes
sage that the Great Physician tendered freely. Its
acceptance is a cure certain, and a life of eternal hap
piness the reward. If the soul accepts, are they not
tidings of great joy ; and if the soul rejects, is it not
unreasonable on the part of Colonel Ingersoll to try
and sneak out and throw the blame on God ?"

The answer to this seems easy. The cases are
not parallel. If an infinite God created us all, he
knew exactly what we would do. If he gave us
free will it does not change the result, because he
knew how we would use the free will.

Now, if he knew that billions upon billions would
refuse to take the remedy, and consequently would
suffer eternal pain, why create them ? There would
have been much less misery in the world had he left
them dust.

What right has a God to make a failure ? Why
should he change dust into a sentient being, know
ing that that being was to be the heir of endless
agony ?

If the supposed physician had created the patient

A CHRISTMAS SERMON. 327

who refused to take the medicine, and had so created
him that he knew he would refuse to take it, the
cases might be parallel.

According to the orthodox creed, millions are to
be damned who never heard of the medicine or of
the " Great Physician."

There is one thing said by the Rev. Mr. Talmage
that I hardly think he could have intended. Pos
sibly there has been a misprint. It is the following
paragraph :

" Who " (speaking of Jesus) " has such an eye to
our need ; such a lip to kiss away our sorrow ; such
a hand to snatch us out of the fire ; such a foot to
trample our enemies ; such a heart to embrace all
our necessities ? "

What does the reverend gentleman mean by
" such afoot to trample our enemies " f

This, to me, is a terrible line. But it is in accord
ance with the history of the church. In the name
of its founder it has " trampled on its enemies," and
beneath its cruel feet have perished the noblest of
the world.

The Rev. J. Benson Hamilton, of Brooklyn, comes
into this discussion with a great deal of heat and
considerable fury. He states that " Infidelity is the
creed of prosperity, but when sickness or trouble or

328 A CHRISTMAS SERMON.

sorrow comes he " (meaning the infidel) " does not
paw nor mock nor cry ' Ha ! ha ! ' He sneaks and
cringes like a whipped cur, and trembles and whines
and howls."

The spirit of Mr. Hamilton is not altogether ad
mirable. He seems to think that a man establishes
the truth of his religion by being brave, or demon
strates its falsity by trembling in the presence of
death.

Thousands of people have died for false religions
and in honor of false gods. Their heroism did not
prove the truth of the religion, but it did prove the
sincerity of their convictions.

A great many murderers have been hanged who
exhibited on the scaffold the utmost contempt of
death ; and yet this courage exhibited by dying
murderers has never been appealed to in justification
of murder.

The reverend gentleman tells again the story of
the agonies endured by Thomas Paine when dying ;
tells us that he then said that he wished his work
had been thrown into the fire, and that if the devil
ever had any agency in any work he had in the
writing of that book (meaning " The Age of Rea
son,") and that he frequently asked the Lord Jesus
to have mercy upon him.

A CHRISTMAS SERMON. 329

Of course there is not a word of truth in this
story. Its falsity has been demonstrated thousands
and thousands of times, and yet ministers of the
Gospel go right on repeating it just the same.

So this gentleman tells us that Voltaire was accus
tomed to close his letters with the words, " Crush
the wretch ! " (meaning Christ). This is not so. He
referred to superstition, to religion, not to Christ.

This gentleman also says that " Voltaire was the
prey of anguish and dread, alternately supplicating
and blaspheming God ; that he complained that he
was abandoned by God ; that when he died his
friends fled from the room, declaring the sight too
terrible to be endured."

There is not one word of truth in this. Everybody
who has read the life of Voltaire knows that he died
with the utmost serenity.

Let me tell you how Voltaire died.

He was an old man of eighty-four. He had been
surrounded by the comforts of life. He was a man
of wealth — of genius. Among the literary men of
the world he stood first. God had allowed him to
have the appearance of success. His last years
were filled with the intoxication of flattery. He
stood at the summit of his age. The priests became
anxious. They began to fear that God would for-

33O A CHRISTMAS SERMON.

get, in a multiplicity of business, to make a terrible
example of Voltaire.

Toward the last of May, 1788, it was whispered in
Paris that Voltaire was dying. Upon the fences of
expectation gathered the unclean birds of supersti
tion, impatiently waiting for their prey.

" Two days before his death his nephew went to
seek the Cure" of St. Sulpice and the Abbe" Gautier,
and brought them into his uncle's sick-chamber,
who was informed that they were there.

" ' Ah, well/ said Voltaire ; ' give them my com
pliments and my thanks.'

" The abbe" spoke some words to Voltaire, exhort
ing him to patience. The Cure" of St. Sulpice then
came forward, having announced himself, and asked
Voltaire, lifting his voice, if he acknowledged the
divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. The sick man
pushed one of his hands against the curb's coif shov
ing him back, and cried, turning abruptly to the other
side:

" 'Let me die in peace !'

" The cure" seemingly considered his person soiled
and his coif dishonored by the touch of the philoso
pher. He made the nurse give him a little brushing
and went out with the Abbe" Gautier.

" He expired," says Wagniere, " on the 3oth of

A CHRISTMAS SERMON. 33!

May, 1788, at about a quarter past eleven at night,
with the most perfect tranquillity.

" Ten minutes before his last breath he took the
hand of Morand, his valet-de-chambre, who was
watching by him, pressed it and said : ' Adieu, my
dear Morand. I am gone !'

" These were his last words."

From this death, so simple and serene, so natural
and peaceful — from these words so utterly destitute of
cant or dramatic touch — all the frightful pictures, all
the despairing utterances have been drawn and made.
From these materials, and from these alone, have
been constructed all the shameless calumnies about
the death of this great and wonderful man.

Voltaire was the intellectual autocrat of his time.
From his throne at the foot of thq Alps he pointed
the finger of scorn at every hypocrite in Europe. He
was the pioneer of his century. He was the assassin
of superstition. Through the shadows of faith and
fable ; through the darkness of myth and miracle ;
through the midnight of Christianity ; through the
blackness of bigotry ; past cathedral and dungeon ;
past rack and stake ; past altar and throne, he car
ried, with chivalric hands, the sacred torch of
Reason.

Let me also tell you about the death of Thomas

332 A CHRISTMAS SERMON.

Paine. After the publication of his " Rights of Man "
and " The Age of Reason ", every falsehood that
malignity could coin and malice pass, was given to
the world. On his return to America, although
Thomas Jefferson, another infidel, was President,
it was hardly safe for Paine to appear in the public
streets.

Under the very flag he had helped to put in heaven,
his rights were not respected. Under the Constitu
tion that he had first suggested, his life was insecure.
He had helped to give liberty to more than three
millions of his fellow-citizens, and they were willing
to deny it unto him.

He was deserted, ostracized, shunned, maligned
and cursed. But he maintained his integrity. He
stood by the convictions of his mind, and never for
one moment did he hesitate or waver. He died
almost alone.

The moment he died the pious commenced manu
facturing horrors for his death-bed. They had his
chamber filled with devils rattling chains, and these
ancient falsehoods are certified to by the clergy even
of the present day.

The truth is that Thomas Paine died as he had
lived. Some ministers were impolite enough to visit
him against his will. Several of them he ordered

A CHRISTMAS SERMON. 333

from his room. A couple of Catholic priests, in all
the meekness of arrogance, called that they might
enjoy the agonies of the dying friend of man.
Thomas Paine, rising in his bed, the few moments
of expiring life fanned into flame by the breath of
indignation, had the goodness to curse them both.

His physician, who seems to have been a meddling
fool, just as the cold hand of Death was touching the
patriot's heart, whispered in the dulled ear of the
dying man : " Do you believe, or do you wish to be
lieve, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God ? "

And the reply was : " I have no wish to believe on
that subject."

These were the last remembered words of Thomas
Paine. He died as serenely as ever mortal passed
away. He died in the full possession of his mind,
and on the brink and edge of death proclaimed the
doctrines of his life.

Every philanthropist, every believer in human
liberty, every lover of the great Republic, should feel
under obligation to Thomas Paine for the splendid
services rendered by him in the darkest days of the
American Revolution. In the midnight of Valley
Forge, " The Crisis " was the first star that glittered
in the wide horizon of despair.

We should remember that Thomas Paine was the

334 A CHRISTMAS SERMON.

first man to write these words : " The United States
of America."

The Rev. Mr. Hamilton seems to take a kind of
joy in imagining what infidels will suffer when they
come to die, and he writes as though he would like
to be present.

For my part I hope that all the sons and daughters
of men will die in peace ; that they will pass away
as easily as twilight fades to night.

Of course when I said that " Christianity did not
bring tidings of great joy, but a message of eternal
grief," I meant orthodox Christianity ; and when I
said that " Christianity fills the future with fire and
flame, and made God the keeper of an eternal peni
tentiary, in which most of the children of men were
to be imprisoned forever," I was giving what I un
derstood to be the Evangelical belief on that
subject.

If the churches have given up the doctrine of
eternal punishment, then for one I am delighted,
and I shall feel that what little I have done toward
that end has not been done in vain.

The Rev. Mr. Hamilton, enjoying my dying agony
in imagination, says : " Let the world wait but for a
few years at the most, when Death's icy fingers feel
for the heartstrings of the boaster, and, as most of

A CHRISTMAS SERMON. 335

his like who have gone before him have done, he
will sing another strain."

How shall I characterize the spirit that could
prompt the writing of such a sentence ?

The reverend gentleman " loves his enemies,"
and yet he is filled with glee when he thinks of the
agonies I shall endure when Death's icy fingers feel
for the strings of my heart ! Yet I have done him
no harm.

He then quotes, as being applicable to me, a pas
sage from the prophet Isaiah, commencing : " The
vile person will speak villainy."

Is this passage applicable only to me ?

The Rev. Mr. Holloway is not satisfied with the
" Christmas Sermon." For his benefit I repeat, in
another form, what the " Christmas Sermon " con
tains :

If orthodox Christianity teaches that this life is a
period of probation, that we settle here our eternal
destiny, and that all who have heard the Gospel and
who have failed to believe it are to be eternally lost,
then I say that Christianity did not " bring tidings
of great joy," but a Message of Eternal Grief. And
if the orthodox churches are still preaching the doc
trine of Endless Pain, then I say it would be far bet
ter if every church crumbled into dust than that

336 A CHRISTMAS SERMON.

such preaching and such teaching should be con
tinued.

It would be far better yet, however, if the minis
ters could be converted and their congregations en
lightened.

I admit that the orthodox churches preach some
things beside hell ; but if they do not believe in
the eternity of punishment they ought publicly to
change their creeds.

I admit, also, that the average minister advises
his congregation to be honest and to treat all with
kindness, and I admit that many of these ministers
fail to follow their own advice when they make
what they call " replies " to me.

Of course there are many good things about the
church. To the extent that it is charitable, or
rather to the extent that it causes charity, it is
good. To the extent that it causes men and women
to lead moral lives it is good. But to the extent
that it fills the future with fear it is bad. To the ex
tent that it convinces any human being that there is
any God who not only can, but will, inflict eternal
torments on his own children, it is bad.

And such teaching does tend to blight humanity.
Such teaching does pollute the imagination of child
hood. Such teaching does furrow the cheeks of the

A CHRISTMAS SERMON. 337

best and tenderest with tears. Such teaching does
rob old age of all its joy, and covers every cradle
with a curse !

The Rev. Mr. Holloway seems to be extremely
familiar with God. He says : " God seems to have
delayed his advent through all the ages to give unto
the world the fullest opportunity to do all that the

human mind could suggest for the weal of the

»
race.

According to this gentleman, God just delayed
his advent for the purpose of seeing what the world
would do, knowing all the time exactly what would
be done.

Let us make a suggestion : If the orthodox creed
be true, then all people became tainted or corrupted
or depraved, or in some way spoiled by what is
known as " Original Sin."

According to the Old Testament, these people
kept getting worse and worse. It does not seem that
Jehovah made any effort to improve them, but he
patiently waited for about fifteen hundred years with
out having established any church, without having
given them a Bible, and then he drowned all but
eight persons.

Now, those eight persons were also depraved. The
taint of Original Sin was also in their blood.

338 A CHRISTMAS SERMON.

It seems to me that Jehovah made a mistake. He
should also have killed the remaining eight, and
started new, kept the serpent out of his garden, and
furnished the first pair with a Bible and the Presby
terian Confession of Faith.

The Rev. Dr. Tyler takes it for granted that all
charity and goodness are the children of Christianity.
This is a mistake. All the virtues were in the world
long before Christ came. Probably Mr. Tyler will
be convinced by the words of Christ himself. He
will probably remember the story of the Good Samar
itan, and if he does he will see that it is exactly in
point. The Good Samaritan was not a Hebrew. He
was not on£ of" the chosen people." He was a poor,
" miserable heathen," who knew nothing about the
Jehovah of the Old Testament, and who had never
heard of the " scheme of salvation." And yet, ac
cording to Christ, he was far more charitable than
the Levites — the priests of Jehovah, the highest of
" the chosen people." Is it not perfectly plain from
this story that charity was in the world before Chris
tianity was established ?

A great deal has been said about asylums and hos
pitals, as though the Christians are entitled to great
credit on that score. If Dr. Tyler will read what is
said in the British Encyclopaedia, under the head of

A CHRISTMAS SERMON. 339

" Mental Diseases," he will find that the Egyptians
treated the insane with the utmost kindness, and
that they called reason back to its throne by the voice
of music ; that the temples were resorted to by crowds
of the insane ; and that "whatever gifts of nature
or productions of art were calculated to impress the
imagination were there united. Games and recrea
tions were instituted in the temples. Groves and
gardens surrounded these holy retreats. Gayly deco
rated boats sometimes transported patients to breathe
the pure breezes of the Nile."

So in ancient Greece it is said that "from the
hands of the priest the cure of the disordered mind
first passed into the domain of medicine, with the
philosophers. Pythagoras is said to have employed
music for the cure of mental diseases. The order of
the day for his disciples exhibits a profound knowl
edge of the relations of body and mind. The early
morning was divided between gentle exercise, con
versation and music. Then came conversation, fol
lowed by gymnastic exercise and a temperate diet.
Afterward, a bath and supper with a sparing allow
ance of wine ; then reading, music and conversation
concluded the day."

So "Asclepiades was celebrated for his treatment
of mental disorders. He recommended that bodily

34O A CHRISTMAS SERMON.

restraint should be avoided as much as possible." It
is also stated that " the philosophy and arts of Greece
spread to Rome, and the first special treatise on in
sanity is that of Celsus, which distinguishes varieties
of insanity and their proper treatment."

" Over the arts and sciences of Greece and Rome
the errors and ignorance of the Middle Ages gradu
ally crept, until they enveloped them in a cloud worse
than Egyptian darkness. The insane were again
consigned to the miracle-working ordinances of
priests cr else totally neglected. Idiots and imbeciles
were permitted to go clotheless and homeless. The
frantic and furious were chained in lonesome dun
geons and exhibited for money, like wild beasts. The
monomaniacs became, according to circumstance, the
objects of superstitious horror or reverence. They
were regarded as possessed with demons and sub
jected either to priestly exorcism, or cruelly destroyed
as wizards and witches. This cruel treatment of the
insane continued with little or no alleviation down
to the end of the last century in all the civilized
countries of Europe."

Let me quote a description of these Christian
asylums.

" Public asylums indeed existed in most of the
metropolitan cities of Europe, but the insane were

A CHRISTMAS SERMON. 341

more generally, if at all troublesome, confined in
jails, where they were chained in the lowest dungeons
or made the butts and menials of the most debased
criminals. In public asylums the inmates were con
fined in cellars, isolated in cages, chained to floors or
walls. These poor victims were exhibited to the
public like wild beasts. They were often killed by
the ignorance and brutality of their keepers."

I call particular attention to the following para
graph : " Such was the state of the insane generally
throughout Europe at the commencement of this
century. Such it continued to be in England so
late as 1815 and in Ireland as 1817, as revealed by
the inquiries of parliamentary commissions in those
years respectively."

Dr. Tyler is entirely welcome to all the comfort
these facts can give.

Not only were the Greeks and Romans and
Egyptians far in advance of the Christians in the
treatment of the mentally diseased, but even the
Mohammedans were in advance of the Christians
about 700 years, and in addition to this they treated
their lunatics with great kindness.

The temple of Diana of Ephesus was a refuge for
insolvent debtors, and the Thesium was a refuge for
slaves.

342 A CHRISTMAS SERMON.

Again, I say that hundreds of years before the
establishment of Christianity there were in India not
only hospitals and asylums for people, but even for
animals. The great mistake of the Christian clergy
is that they attribute all goodness to Christianity.
They have always been engaged in maligning human
nature — in attacking the human heart — in efforts to
destroy all natural passions.

Perfect maxims for the conduct of life were uttered
and repeated in India and China hundreds and hun
dreds of years before the Christian era. Every virtue
was lauded and every vice denounced. All the
good that Christianity has in it came from the human
heart. Everything in that system of religion came
from this world ; and in it you will find not only the
goodness of man, but the imperfections of man — not
only the love of man, but the malice of man.

Let me tell you why the Christians for so many
centuries neglected or abused the insane. They be
lieved the New Testament, and honestly supposed
that the insane were filled with devils.

In regard to the contest between Dr. Buckley,
who, as I understand it, is a doctor of theology —
and I should think such theology stood in need of a
doctor — and the Telegram, I have nothing to say.
There is only one side to that contest ; and so far

A CHRISTMAS SERMON. 343

as the Doctor heretofore criticised what is known as
the " Christmas Sermon," I have answered him,
leaving but very little to which I care to reply in
his last article.

Dr. Buckley, like many others, brings forward
names instead of reasons — instead of arguments.
Milton, Pascal, Elizabeth Fry, John Howard, and
Michael Faraday are not arguments. They are only
names ; and, instead of giving the names, Dr. Buck
ley should give the reasons advanced by those
whose names he pronounces.

Jonathan Edwards may have been a good man,
but certainly his theology was infamous. So Father
Mathew was a good man, but it was impossible for
him to be good enough to convince Dr. Buckley of
the doctrine of the " Real Presence."

Milton was a very good man, and he described
God as a kind of brigadier-general, put the angels
in uniform and had regular battles ; but Milton's
goodness can by no possibility establish the truth of
his poetical and absurd vagaries.

All the self-denial and goodness in the world do
not even tend to prove the existence of the super
natural or of the miraculous. Millions and millions
of the most devoted men could not, by their devo
tion, substantiate the inspiration of the Scriptures.

344 A CHRISTMAS SERMON.

There are, however, some misstatements in Dr.
Buckley's article that ought not to be passed over
in silence.

The first is to the effect that I was invited to
write an article for the North American Review,
Judge Jeremiah Black to reply, and that Judge Black
was improperly treated.

Now, it is true that I was invited to write an ar
ticle, and did write one ; but I did not know at the
time who was to reply. It is also true that Judge
Black did reply, and that my article and his reply
appeared in the same number of the Review.

Dr. Buckley alleges that the North American Re
view gave me an opportunity to review the Judge,
but denied to Judge Black an opportunity to respond.
This is without the slightest foundation in fact. Mr.
Metcalf, who at that time was manager of the
Review, is still living and will tell the facts. Per
sonally I had nothing to do with it, one way or the
other. I did not regard Judge Black's reply as for
midable, and was not only willing that he should be
heard again, but anxious that he should.

So much for that.

As to the debate, with Dr. Field and Mr. Gladstone,
I leave them to say whether they were or were not
fairly treated. Dr. Field, by his candor, by his fair-

A CHRISTMAS SERMON. 345

ness, and by the manly spirit he exhibited won my
respect and love.

Most ministers imagine that any man who differs
from them is a blasphemer. .This word seems to
leap unconsciously from their lips. They cannot
imagine that another man loves liberty as much and
with as sincere devotion as they love God. They
cannot imagine that another prizes liberty above all
gods, even if gods exist. They cannot imagine that
any mind is so that it places Justice above all per
sons, a mind that cannot conceive even of a God who
is not bound to do justice.

If God exists, above him, in eternal calm, is the
figure of Justice.

Neither can some ministers understand a man who
regards Jehovah and Jupiter as substantially the
same, with this exception — that he thinks far more
of Jupiter, because Jupiter had at least some human
feelings.

I do not understand that a man can be guilty of
blasphemy who states his honest thoughts in proper
language, his object being, not to torture the feelings
of others, but simply to give his thought — to find and
establish the truth.

Dr. Buckley makes a charge that he ought to have
known to be without foundation. Speaking of my-

34-6 A CHRISTMAS SERMON.

self, he said : " In him the laws to prevent the circu
lation of obscene publications through the mails have
found their most vigorous opponent."

It is hardly necessary for me to say that this is un
true. The facts are that an effort was made to clas
sify obscene literature with what the pious call
" blasphemous and immoral works." A petition was
forwarded to Congress to amend the law so that the
literature of Freethought could not be thrown from
the mails, asking that, if no separation could be made,
the law should be repealed.

It was said that I had signed this petition, and I
certainly should have done so had it been presented
to me. The petition was absolutely proper.

A few years ago I found the petition, and discov
ered that while it bore my name it had never been
signed by me. But for the purposes of this answer I
am perfectly willing that the signature should be
regarded as genuine, as there is nothing in the pe
tition that should not have been granted.

The law as it stood was opposed by the Liberal
League — but not a member of that society was in
favor of the circulation of obscene literature ; but
they did think that the privacy of the mails had
been violated, and that it was of the utmost import
ance to maintain the inviolability of the postal service.

A CHRISTMAS SERMON. 347

I disagreed with these people, and favored the de
struction of obscene literature not only, but that it
be made a criminal offence to send it through the
mails. As a matter of fact I drew up resolutions to
that effect that were passed. Afterward they were
changed, or some others were passed, and I resigned
from the League on that account.

Nothing can be more absurd than that I was,
directly or indirectly, or could have been, interested
in the circulation of obscene publications through
the mails ; and I will pay a premium of #1,000 a
word for each and every word I ever said or wrote
in favor of sending obscene publications through the
mails.

I might use much stronger language. I might
follow the example of Dr. Buckley himself. But I
think I have said enough to satisfy all unprejudiced
people that the charge is absurdly false.

Now, as to the eulogy of whiskey. It gives me a
certain pleasure to read that even now, and I believe
the readers of the Telegram would like to read it
once more ; so here it is :

" I send you some of the most wonderful whiskey
that ever drove the skeleton from a feast or painted
landscapes in the brain of man. It is the mingled
souls of wheat and corn. In it you will find the

34-8 A CHRISTMAS SERMON.

sunshine and the shadow that chased each other over
the billowy fields ; the breath of June ; the carol of the
lark ; the dews of night ; the wealth of summer and
autumn's rich content, all golden with imprisoned
light. Drink it and you will hear the voices of
men and maidens singing the ' Harvest Home,'
iningled with the laughter of children. Drink it
and you will feel within your blood the star-lit
dawns, the dreamy, tawny dusks of many perfect
days. For forty years this liquid joy has been with
in the happy staves of oak, longing to touch the lips
of men."

I re-quote this for the reason that Dr. Buckley,
who is not very accurate, made some mistakes in
his version.

Now, in order to show the depth of degradation to
which I have sunk in this direction, I will confess
that I also wrote a eulogy of tobacco, and here
it is :

" Nearly four centuries ago Columbus, the adven
turous, in the blessed island of Cuba, saw happy people
with rolled leaves between their lips. Above their
heads were little clouds of smoke. Their faces were
serene, and in their eyes was the autumnal heaven of
content. These people were kind, innocent, gentle
and loving.

A CHRISTMAS SERMON. 349

" The climate of Cuba is the friendship of the earth
and air, and of this climate the sacred leaves were
born — the leaves that breed in the mind of him who
uses them the cloudless, happy days in which they
grew.

" These leaves make friends, and celebrate with
gentle rites the vows of peace. They have given
consolation to the world. They are the companions
of the lonely — the friends of the imprisoned, of the
exile, of workers in mines, of fellers of forests, of
sailors on the desolate seas. They are the givers of
strength and calm to the vexed and wearied minds
of those who build with thought and dream the tem
ples of the soul.

" They tell of hope and rest. They smooth the
wrinkled brows of pain — drive fears and strange mis
shapen dreads from out the mind and fill the heart
with rest and peace. Within their magic warp and
woof some potent gracious spell imprisoned lies, that,
when released by fire, doth softly steal within the
fortress of the brain and bind in sleep the captured
sentinels of care and grief.

" These leaves are the friends of the fireside, and
their smoke, like incense, rises from myriads of happy
homes. Cuba is the smile of the sea."

There are some people so constituted that there is

35O A CHRISTMAS SERMON.

no room in the heaven of their minds for the butter
flies and moths of fancy to spread their wings.
Everything is taken in solemn and stupid earnest.
Such men would hold Shakespeare responsible for
what Falstaff said about " sack," and for Mrs. Quickly 's
notions of propriety.

There is an old Greek saying which is applicable
here : " In the presence of human stupidity, even
the gods stand helpless."

John Wesley, founder of the Methodist Church,
lacked all sense of humor. He preached a sermon
on " The Cause and Cure of Earthquakes." He in
sisted that they were caused by the wickedness of
man, and that the only way to cure them was to be
lieve on the Lord Jesus Christ.

The man who does not carry the torch of Humor
is always in danger of falling into the pit of Ab
surdity.

The Rev. Charles Deems, pastor of the Church
of the Strangers, contributes his part to the discus
sion.

He took a text from John, as follows : " He that
committeth sin is of the devil, for the devil sinneth
from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of
God was manifested, that he might destroy the works
of the devil."

A CHRISTMAS SERMON. 351

According to the orthodox creed of the Rev. Dr.
Deems all have committed sin, and consequently all
are of the devil. The Doctor is not a metaphysician.
He does not care to play at sleight of hand with
words. He stands on bed-rock, and he asserts that
the devil is no Persian myth, but a personality, who
works unhindered by the limitations of a physical
body, and gets human personalities to aid him in his
works.

According to the text, it seems that the devil was
a sinner from the beginning. I suppose that must
mean from his beginning, or from the beginning of
things. According to Dr. Deems' creed, his God is
the Creator of all things, and consequently must have
been the Creator of the devil. According to the
Scriptures the devil is the father of lies, and Dr.
Deems' God is the father of the devil — that is to say,
the grandfather of lies. This strikes me as almost
" blasphemous."

The Doctor also tells us " that Jesus believed as
much in the personality of the devil as in that of
Herod or Pilate or John or Peter."

That I admit. There is not the slightest doubt, if
the New Testament be true, that Christ believed in
a personal devil — a devil with whom he had conver
sations ; a devil who took him to the pinnacle of the

352 A CHRISTMAS SERMON.

Temple and endeavored to induce him to leap to the
earth below.

Of course he believed in a personal devil. Not
only so ; he believed in thousands of personal devils.
He cast seven devils out of Mary Magdalene. He
cast a legion of devils out of the man in the tombs,
or, rather, made a bargain with these last-mentioned
devils that they might go into a drove or herd of
swine, if they would leave the man.

I not only admit that Christ believed in devils, but
he believed that some devils were deaf and dumb,
and so declared.

Dr. Deems is right, and I hope he will defend
against all comers the integrity of the New Testa
ment.

The Doctor, however, not satisfied exactly with
what he finds in the New Testament, draws a little on
his own imagination. He says :

" The devil is an organizing, imperial intellect,
vindictive, sharp, shrewd, persevering, the aim of
whose works is to overthrow the authority of God's
law."

How does the Doctor know that the devil has an
organizing, imperial intellect ? How does he know
that he is vindictive and sharp and shrewd and per
severing ?

A CHRISTMAS SERMON. 363

If the devil has an " imperial intellect," why does
he attempt the impossible ?

Robert Burns shocked Scotland by saying of the
devil, or, rather, to the devil, that he was sorry for
him, and hoped he would take a thought and mend.

Dr. Deems has gone far in advance of Burns. For
a clergyman he seems to be exceedingly polite.
Speaking of the " Arch Enemy of God " — of that
" organizing, imperial intellect who is seeking to un
dermine the church " — the Doctor says :

" The devil may be conceded to be sincere."

It has been said :

"An honest God is the noblest work of man," and
it may now be added : A sincere devil is the noblest
work of Dr. Deems.

But, with all the devil's smartness, sharpness, and
shrewdness, the Doctor says that he " cannot write a
book ; that, he cannot deliver lectures " (like myself,
I suppose), " edit a newspaper " (like the editor of the
Telegram], " or make after-dinner speeches ; but he
can get his servants to do these things for him."

There is one thing in the Doctor's address that I
feel like correcting (I quote from the Telegrams re
port) :

"Dr. Deems showed at length how the Son of God,
the Christ of the Bible — not the Christ of the lecture

$54 A CHRISTMAS SERMON.

platform caricatures — is operating to overcome all
these works."

I take it for granted that he refers to what he
supposes I have said about Christ, and, for fear that
he may not have read it, I give it here :

"And let me say here, once for all, that for the man
Christ I have infinite respect. Let me say, once for
all, that the place where man has died for man is holy
ground. And let me say, once for all, that to that
great and serene man I gladly pay, the tribute of my
admiration and my tears. He was a reformer in his
day. He was an infidel in his time. He was re
garded as a blasphemer, and his life was destroyed
by hypocrites, who have, in all ages, done what they
could to trample freedom and manhood out of the
human mind. Had I lived at that time I would have
been his friend, and should he come again he will not
find a better friend than I will be. That is for the
man. For the theological creation I have a different
feeling."

I have not answered each one who has attacked by
name. Neither have I mentioned those who have
agreed with me. But I do take this occasion to
thank all, irrespective of their creeds, who have man
fully advocated the right of free speech, and who
have upheld the Telegram in the course it has taken.

A CHRISTMAS SERMON. 355

I thank all who have said a kind word for me, and I
also feel quite grateful to those who have failed to
say unkind words. Epithets are not arguments. To
abuse is not to convince. Anger is stupid and malice
illogical.

And, after all that has appeared by way of reply,
I still insist that orthodox Christianity did not come
with " tidings of great joy," but with a message of
eternal grief.

ROBERT G. INGERSOLL.

New York, February 5, 1892.

SUICIDE OF JUDGE NORMILE.

SUICIDE OF JUDGE NORMILE.*

Question. Have you read an article in the
Western Watchman, entitled " Suicide of Judge
Normile " ? If so, what is your opinion of it ?

Answer. I have read the article, and I think the
spirit in which it is written is in exact accord with
the creed, with the belief, that prompted it.

In this article the writer speaks not only of Judge
Normile, but of Henry D'Arcy, and begins by say
ing that a Catholic community had been shocked,
but that as a matter of fact the Catholics had no
right " to feel special concern in the life or death of
either," for the reason, " that both had ceased to be
Catholics, and had lived as infidels and scoffers."

According to the Catholic creed all infidels and
scoffers are on the direct road to eternal pain ; and
yet, if the Watchman is to be believed, Catholics
have no right to have special concern for the fate of
such people, even after their death.

•A reply to the Western Watchman, published in the St. Louis Globe Democrat,
Sept. 1, 1892. (359)

360 SUICIDE OF JUDGE NORMILE.

The church has always proclaimed that it was
seeking the lost — that it was trying in every way
to convert the infidels and save the scoffers — that
it cared less for the ninety-nine sheep safe in the
fold than for the one that had strayed. We have
been told that God so loved infidels and scoffers,
that he came to this poor world and gave his life
that they might be saved. But now we are told
by the Western Watchman that the church, said to
have been founded by Christ, has no right to feel
any special concern about the fate of infidels and
scoffers.

Possibly the Watchman only refers to the infidels
and scoffers who were once Catholics.

If the New Testament is true, St. Peter was at
one time a Christian ; that is to say, a good Catho
lic, and yet he fell from grace and not only denied
his Master, but went to the extent of swearing that
he did not know him ; that he never had made his
acquaintance. And yet, this same Peter was taken
back and became the rock on which the Catholic
Church is supposed to rest.

Are the Catholics of St. Louis following the
example of Christ, when they publicly declare that
they care nothing for the fate of one who left the
church and who died in his sins ?

SUICIDE OF JUDGE NORMILE. 361

The Watchman, in order to show that it was
simply doing its duty, and was not actuated by
hatred or malice, assures us as follows : " A warm
personal friendship existed between D'Arcy and
Normile and the managers of this paper." What'
would the Watchman have said if these men had
been the personal enemies of the managers of that
paper ? Two warm personal friends, once Catho
lics, had gone to hell ; but the managers of the
Watchman, " warm personal friends " of the dead,
had no right to feel any special concern about these
friends in the flames of perdition. One would think
that pity had changed to piety.

Another wonderful statement is that " both of
these men determined to go to hell, if there was a
hell, and to forego the joys of heaven, if there was
a heaven."

Admitting that heaven and hell exist, that heaven
is a good place, and that hell, to say the least, is,
and eternally will be, unpleasant, why should any
sane man unalterably determine to go to hell ? It is
hard to think of any reason, unless he was afraid of
meeting those Catholics in heaven who had been
his " warm personal friends " in this world. The
truth is that no one wishes to be unhappy in this or
any other country. The truth is that Henry D'Arcy

SUICIDE OF JUDGE NORMILE.

and Judge Normile both became convinced that the
Catholic Church is of human origin, that its creed is
not true, that it is the enemy of progress, and the foe
of freedom. It may be that they were in part led to
these conclusions by the conduct of their " warm
personal friends."

It is claimed that these men, Henry D'Arcy and
Judge Normile " studied " to convince -themselves
" that there was no God ;" that " they went back to
Paganism and lived among the ancients," and that
they soon revelled " in the grossness of Paganism."
If they went back to Paganism, they certainly found
plenty of gods. The Pagans filled heaven and
earth with deities. The Catholics have only three,
while the Pagans had hundreds. And yet there were
some very good Pagans. By associating with So
crates and Plato one would not necessarily become
a groveling wretch. Zeno was not altogether abom
inable. He would compare favorably, at least, with
the average pope. Aristotle was not entirely despic
able, although wrong, it may be, in many things.
Epicurus was temperate, frugal and serene. He
perceived the beauty of use, and celebrated the mar
riage of virtue and joy. He did not teach his dis
ciples to revel in grossness, although his maligners
have made this charge. Cicero was a Pagan, and

SUICIDE OF JUDGE NORMILE. 363

yet he uttered some very sublime and generous
sentiments. Among other things, he said this :
"When we say that we should love Romans, but not
foreigners, we destroy the bond of universal brother
hood and drive from our hearts charity and justice."

Suppose a Pagan had written about " two warm
personal friends " of his, who had joined the Catholic
Church, and suppose he had said this : "Although
our two warm personal friends have both died by
their own hands, and although both have gone to
the lowest hell, and are now suffering inconceivable
agonies, we have no right to feel any special con
cern about them or about their sufferings ; and, to
speak frankly, we care nothing for their agonies,
nothing for their tears, and we mention them only to
keep other Pagans from joining that blasphemous
and ignorant church. Both of our friends were
raised as Pagans, both were educated in our holy re
ligion, and both had read the works of our greatest
and wisest authors, and yet they fell into apostasy,
and studied day and night, in season and out of
season, to convince themselves that a young car
penter of Palestine was in fact, Jupiter, whom we call
Stator, the creator, the sustainer and governor of
all."

It is probable that the editor of the Watchman

364 SUICIDE OF JUDGE NORMILE.

was perfectly conscientious in his attack on the dead.
Nothing but a sense of religious duty could in
duce any man to attack the character of a " warm
personal friend," and to say that although the friend
was in hell, he\ felt no special concern as to his
fate.

The Watchman seems to think that it is hardly
probable or possible that a sane Catholic should be
come an infidel. People of every religion feel sub
stantially in this way. It is probable that the Mo
hammedan is of the opinion that no sane believer in
the religion of Islam could possibly become a Cath
olic. Probably there are no sane Mohammedans. I
do not know.

Now, it seems to me, that when a sane Catholic
reads the history of his church, of the Inquisition, of
centuries of flame and sword, of philosophers and
thinkers tortured, flayed and burned by the " Bride
of God," and of all the cruelties of Christian years,
he may reasonably come to the conclusion that the
Church of Rome is not the best possible church in
this, the best possible of all worlds.

It would hardly impeach his sanity if, after reading
the history of superstition, he should denounce the
Hierarchy, from priest to pope. The truth is, the
real opinions of all men are perfectly honest no

SUICIDE OF JUDGE NORMILE. 365

matter whether they are for or against the Catholic
creed. All intelligent people are intellectually hos
pitable. Every man who knows something of the
operations of his own mind is absolutely certain that
his wish has not, to his knowledge, influenced his
judgment. He may admit that his wish has influenced
his speech, but he must certainly know that it has not
affected his judgment.

In other words, a man cannot cheat himself in a
game of solitaire and really believe that he has won
the game. No matter what the appearance of the
cards may be, he knows whether the game was lost
or won. So, men may say that their judgment is a
certain way, and they may so affirm in accordance
with their wish, but neither the wish, nor the decla
ration can affect the real judgment. So, a man must
know whether he believes a certain creed or not, or,
at least, what the real state of his mind is. When
a man tells me that he believes in the supernatural,
in the miraculous, and in the inspiration of the Scrip
tures, I take it for granted that he is telling the
truth, although it seems impossible to me that the
man could reach that conclusion. When another
tells me that he does not know whether there is a
Supreme Being or not, but that he does not be
lieve in the supernatural, and is perfectly satisfied

366 SUICIDE OF JUDGE NORMILE.

that the Scriptures are for the most part false and
barbarous, I implicitly believe every word he says.

I admit cheerfully that there are many millions
of men and women who believe what to me seems
impossible and infinitely absurd ; and, undoubtedly,
what I believe seems to them equally impossible.

Let us give to others the liberty which we claim
for ourselves.

The Watchman seems to think that unbelief,
especially when coupled with what they call " the sins
of the flesh," is the lowest possible depth, and tells us
that "robbers maybe devout," "murderers peni
tent," and " drunkards reverential."

In some of these statements the Watchman is
probably correct. There have been " devout rob
bers." There have been gentlemen of the high
way, agents of the road, who carried sacred images,
who bowed, at holy shrines for the purpose of
securing success. For many centuries the devout
Catholics robbed the Jews. The devout Ferdinand
and Isabella were great robbers. A great many
popes have indulged in this theological pastime, not
to speak of the rank and file. Yes, the Watchman
is right. There is nothing in robbery that necessa
rily interferes with devotion.

There have been penitent murderers, and most

SUICIDE OF JUDGE NORMILE. 367

murderers, unless impelled by a religious sense of
duty to God, have been penitent. David, with
dying breath, advised his son to murder the old
friends of his father. He certainly was not penitent.
Undoubtedly Torquemada murdered without re
morse, and Calvin burned his " warm personal
friend " to gain the applause of God. Philip the
Second was a murderer, not penitent, because he
deemed it his duty. The same may be said of the
Duke of Alva, and of thousands of others.

Robert Burns was not, according to his own
account, strictly virtuous, and yet I like him better
than I do those who planned and carried into bloody
execution the massacre of St. Bartholomew.

Undoubtedly murderers have been penitent. A
man in California cut the throat of a woman, although
she begged for mercy, saying at the same time that
she was not prepared to die. He cared nothing for
her prayers. He was tried, convicted and sentenced
to death. He made a motion for a new trial. This
was denied. He appealed to the governor, but the
executive refused to interfere. Then he became
penitent and experienced religion. On the scaffold
he remarked that he was going to heaven ; that his
only regret was that he would not meet the woman
he had murdered, as she was not a Christian

368 SUICIDE OF JUDGE NORMILE.

when she died. Undoubtedly murderers can be
penitent.

An old Spaniard was dying. He sent for a priest
to administer the last sacraments of the church.
The priest told him that he must forgive all his ene
mies. " I have no enemies," said the dying man,
" I killed the last one three weeks ago." Undoubt
edly murderers can be penitent.

So, I admit that drunkards have been pious and
reverential, and I might add, honest and generous.

Some good Catholics and some good Protestants
have enjoyed a hospitable glass, and there have been
priests who used the blood of the grape for other
than a sacramental purpose. Even Luther, a good
Catholic in his day, a reformer, a Doctor of Divinity,
gave to the world this couplet :

" Who loves not woman, wine and song,
Will live a fool his whole life long."

The Watchman, in effect, says that a devout robber
is better than an infidel ; that a penitent murderer
is superior to a freethinker, in the sight of God.

Another curious thing in this article is that after
sending both men to hell, the Watchman says :
"As to their moral habits we know nothing."

It may then be taken for granted, if these " warm
personal friends" knew nothing against the dead,

SUICIDE OF JUDGE NORMILE. 369

that their lives were, at least, what the church calls
moral. We know, if we know anything, that there
is no necessary connection between what is called
religion and morality. Certainly there were millions
of moral people, those who loved mercy and dealt
honestly, before the Catholic Church existed. The
virtues were well known, and practiced, before a
triple crown surrounded the cunning brain of an
Italian Vicar of God, and before the flames of the
Auto da fe delighted the hearts of a Christian mob.
Thousands of people died for the right, before the
wrong organized the infallible church.

But why should any man deem it his duty or feel
it a pleasure to say harsh and cruel things of the
dead ? Why pierce the brow of death with the
thorns of hatred ? Suppose the editor of the Watch
man had died, and Judge Normile had been the
survivor, would the infidel and scoffer have attacked
the unreplying dead ?

Henry D'Arcy I did not know ; but Judge Nor
mile was my friend and I was his. Although we
met but a few times, he excited my admiration and
respect. He impressed me as being an exceedingly
intelligent man, well informed on many subjects, of
varied reading, possessed of a clear and logical mind,
a poetic temperament, enjoying the beautiful things

370 SUICIDE OF JUDGE NORMILE.

in literature and art, and the noble things in life. He
gave his opinions freely, but without the least arro
gance, and seemed perfectly willing that others
should enjoy the privilege of differing with him.
He was, so far as I could perceive, a gentleman,
tender of the feelings of others, free and manly in
his bearing, " of most excellent fancy," and a most
charming and agreeable companion.

According, however, to the Watchman, such a
man is far below a " devout robber " or a " penitent
murderer." Is it possible that an assassin like
Ravillac is far better than a philosopher like Voltaire ;
and that all the Catholic robbers and murderers who
retain their faith, give greater delight to God than
the Humboldts, Haeckels and Darwins who have
filled the world with intellectual light ?

Possibly the Catholic Church is mistaken. Possi
bly the Watchman is in error, and possibly there
may be for the erring, even in another world, some
asylum besides hell.

Judge Normile died by his own hand. Certainly
he was not afraid of the future. He was not appalled
by death. He died by his own hand. Can any
thing be more pitiful — more terrible ? How can a
man in the flowing tide and noon of life destroy him
self? What storms there must have been within the

SUICIDE OF JUDGE NORMILE. 371

brain ; what tempests must have raved and wrecked ;
what lightnings blinded and revealed ; what hur
rying clouds obscured and hid the stars; what mon
strous shapes emerged from gloom ; what darkness
fell upon the day ; what visions filled the night ; how
the light failed ; how paths were lost ; how high
ways disappeared ; how chasms yawned ; until one
thought — the thought of death — swift, compassionate
and endless — became the insane monarch of the mind.

Standing by the prostrate form of one who thus
found death, it is far better to pity than to revile — to
kiss the clay than curse the man.

The editor of the Watchman has done himself in
justice. He has not injured the dead, but the living.

I am an infidel — an unbeliever — and yet I hope
that all the children of men may find peace and joy.
No matter how they leave this world, from altar or
from scaffold, crowned with virtue or stained with
crime, I hope that good may come to all.

R. G. INGERSOLL.

IS SUICIDE A SIN?

Is SUICIDE A SIN?*

COL. INGERSOLL'S FIRST LETTER.

1DO not know whether self-killing is on the in
crease or not. If it is, then there must be, on
the average, more trouble, more sorrow, more fail
ure, and, consequently, more people are driven to
despair. In civilized life there is a great struggle,
great competition* and many fail. To fail in a great
city is like being wrecked at sea. In the country a
man has friends; he can get a little credit, a little help,
but in the city it is different. The man is lost in
the multitude. In the roar of the streets, his cry is
not heard. Death becomes his only friend. Death
promises release from want, from hunger and pain,
and so the poor wretch lays down his burden, dashes
it from his shoulders and falls asleep.

To me all this seems very natural. The wonder
is that so many endure and suffer to the natural end,
that so many nurse the spark of life in huts and
prisons, keep it and guard it through years of misery

•These letters were published in the New York World, 1894. (37$)

376 is SUICIDE A SIN?

and want ; support it by beggary, by eating the
crust found in the gutter, and to whom it only gives
days of weariness and nights of fear and dread.
Why should the man, sitting amid the wreck of all
he had, the loved ones dead, friends lost, seek to
lengthen, to preserve his life ? What can the future
have for him ?

Under many circumstances a man has the right
to kill himself. When life is of no value to him,
when he can be of no real assistance to others, why
should a man continue? When he is of no benefit,
when he is a burden to those he loves, why should
he remain ? The old idea was that God made us
and placed us here for a purpose and that it was our
duty to remain until he called us. The world is
outgrowing this absurdity. What pleasure can it
give God to see a man devoured by a cancer ; to
see the quivering flesh slowly eaten ; to see the
nerves throbbing with pain ? Is this a festival for
God ? Why should the poor wretch stay and
suffer ? A little morphine would give him sleep — the
agony would be forgotten and he would pass un
consciously from happy dreams to painless death.

If God determines all births and deaths, of what
use is medicine and why should doctors defy with
pills and powders, the decrees of God ? No one,

is SUICIDE A SIN? 377

except a few insane, act now according to this child
ish superstition. Why should a man, surrounded by
flames, in the midst of a burning building, from
which there is no escape, hesitate to put a bullet
through his brain or a dagger in his heart ? Would
it give God pleasure to see him burn ? When
did the man lose the right of self-defence ?

So, when a man has committed some awful crime,
why should he stay and ruin his family and friends ?
Why should he add to the injury ? Why should he
live, filling his days and nights, and the days and
nights of others, with grief and pain, with agony and
tears ?

Why should a man sentenced to imprisonment for
life hesitate to still his heart ? The grave is better
than the cell. Sleep is sweeter than the ache of toil.
The dead have no masters.

So the poor girl, betrayed and deserted, the door
of home closed against her, the faces of friends
averted, no hand that will help, no eye that will
soften with pity, the future an abyss filled with
monstrous shapes of dread and fear, her mind racked
by fragments of thoughts like clouds broken by
storm, pursued, surrounded by the serpents of re
morse, flying from horrors too great to bear, rushes
with joy through the welcome door of death.

378 is SUICIDE A SIN ?

Undoubtedly there are many cases of perfectly
justifiable suicide — cases in which not to end life
would be a mistake, sometimes almost a crime.

As to the necessity of death, each must decide
for himself. And if a man honestly decides that
death is best — best for him and others — and acts
upon the decision, why should he be blamed ?

Certainly the man who kills himself is not a
physical coward. He may have lacked moral
courage, but not physical. It may be said that
some men fight duels because they are afraid to
decline. They are between two fires — the chance
of death and the certainty of dishonor, and they
take the chance of death. So the Christian mar
tyrs were, according to their belief, between two
fires — the flames of the fagot that could burn but
for a few moments, and the fires of God, that were
eternal. And they chose the flames of the fagot.

Men who fear death to that degree that they
will bear all the pains and pangs that nerves can
feel.rather than die, cannot afford to call the suicide
a coward. It does not seem to me that Brutus was
a coward or that Seneca was. Surely Antony had
nothing left to live for. Cato was not a craven. He
acted on his judgment. So with hundreds of others
whp felt that they had reached the end — that the

is SUICIDE A SIN ? 379

journey was done, the voyage was over, and, so
feeling, stopped. It seems certain that the man who
commits suicide, who " does the thing that ends all
other deeds, that shackles accident and bolts up
change " is not lacking in physical courage.

If men had the courage, they would not linger in
prisons, in almshouses, in hospitals ; they would not
bear the pangs of incurable disease, the stains of
dishonor ; they would not live in filth and want, in
poverty and hunger, neither would they wear the
chain of slavery. All this can be accounted for only
by the fear of death or " of something after."

Seneca, knowing that Nero intended to take his
life, had no fear. He knew that he could defeat
the Emperor. He knew that " at the bottom of
every river, in the coil of every rope, on the point
of every dagger, Liberty sat and smiled." He
knew that it was his own fault if he allowed him
self to be tortured to death by his enemy. He
said : " There is this blessing, that while life has
but one entrance, it has exits innumerable, and as
I choose the house in which I live, the ship in which
I will sail, so will I choose the time and manner of
my death."

To me this is not cowardly, but manly and noble.

Under the Roman law persons found guilty of

380 ^ IS SUICIDE A SIN ?

certain offences were not only destroyed, but their
blood was polluted and their children became out
casts. If, however, they died before conviction
their children were saved. Many committed sui
cide to save their babes. Certainly they were not
cowards. Although guilty of great crimes they
had enough of honor, of manhood, left to save their
innocent children. This was not cowardice.

Without doubt many suicides are caused by in
sanity. Men lose their property. The fear of the
future overpowers them. Things lose proportion,
they lose poise and balance, and in a flash, a gleam
of frenzy, kill themselves. The disappointed in
love, broken in heart — the light fading from their
lives — seek the refuge of death.

Those who take their lives in painful, barbarous
ways — who mangle their throats with broken glass,
dash themselves from towers and roofs, take poisons
that torture like the rack — such persons must be in
sane. But those who take the facts into account,
who weigh the arguments for and against, and who
decide that death is best — the only good — and then
resort to reasonable means, may be, so far as I can
see, in full possession of their minds.

Life is not the same to all — to some a blessing,
to some a curse, to some not much in any way.

IS SUICIDE A SIN? 381

Some leave it with unspeakable regret, some with
the keenest joy and some with indifference.

Religion, or the decadence of religion,has a bear
ing upon the number of suicides. The fear of God,
of judgment, of eternal pain will stay the hand, and
people so believing will suffer here until relieved by-
natural death. A belief in eternal agony beyond
the grave will cause such believers to suffer the pangs
of this life. When there is no fear of the future,
when death is believed to be a dreamless sleep, men
have less hesitation about ending their lives. On
the other hand, orthodox religion has driven mill
ions to insanity. It has caused parents to murder
their children and many thousands to destroy them
selves and others.

It seems probable that all real, genuine orthodox
believers who kill themselves must be insane, and to
such a degree that their belief is forgotten. God
and hell are out of their minds.

I am satisfied that many who commit suicide are
insane, many are in the twilight or dusk of insanity,
and many are perfectly sane.

The law we have in this State making it a crime
to attempt suicide is cruel and absurd and calculated
to increase the number of successful suicides. When
a man has suffered so much, when he has been so

382 IS SUICIDE A SIN?

persecuted and pursued by disaster that he seeks the
rest and sleep of death, why should the State add to
the sufferings of that man ? A man seeking death,
knowing that he will be punished if he fails, will
take extra pains and precautions to make death
certain.

This law was born of superstition, passed by
thoughtlessness and enforced by ignorance and
cruelty.

When the house of life becomes a prison, when
the horizon has shrunk and narrowed to a cell, and
when the convict longs for the liberty of death,
why should the effort to escape be regarded as a
crime ?

Of course, I regard life from a natural point of
view. I do not take gods, heavens or hells into ac
count. My horizon is the known, and my estimate
of life is based upon what I know of life here in this
world. People should not suffer for the sake of
supernatural beings or for other worlds or the hopes
and fears of some future state. Our joys, our suffer
ings and our duties are here.

The law of New York about the attempt to com
mit suicide and the law as to divorce are about equal.
Both are idiotic. Law cannot prevent suicide. Those
who have lost all fear of death, care nothing for law

IS SUICIDE A SIN? 383

and its penalties. Death is liberty, absolute and
eternal.

We should remember that nothing happens but
the natural. Back of every suicide and every attempt
to commit suicide is the natural and efficient cause.
Nothing happens by chance. In this world the facts
touch each other. There is no space between — no
room for chance. Given a certain heart and brain,
certain conditions, and suicide is the necessary result
If we wish to prevent suicide we must change con
ditions. We must by education, by invention, by
art, by civilization, add. to the value of the average
life. We must cultivate the brain and heart — do
away with false pride and false modesty. We must
become generous enough to help our fellows with
out degrading them. We must make industry —
useful work of all kinds — honorable. We must
mingle a little affection with our charity — a little
fellowship. We should allow those who have sinned
to really reform. We should not think only of
what the wicked have done, but we should think of
what we have wanted to do. People do not hate
the sick. Why should they, despise the mentally
weak — the diseased in brain ?

Our actions are the fruit, the result, of circum
stances — of conditions — and we do as we must.

384 IS SUICIDE A SIN ?

This great truth should fill the heart with pity for
the failures of our race.

Sometimes I have wondered that Christians de
nounced the suicide ; that in olden times they buried
him where the roads crossed, drove a stake through
his body, and then took his property from his
children and gave it to the State.

If Christians would only think, they would see
that orthodox religion rests upon suicide — that man
was redeemed by suicide, and that without suicide
the whole world would have been lost.

If Christ were God, then he had the power to
protect himself from the Jews without hurting them.
But instead of using his power he allowed them to
take his life.

If a strong man should allow a few little children
to hack him to death with knives when he could
easily have brushed them aside, would we not say
that he committed suicide ?

There is no escape. If Christ were, in fact, God,
and allowed the Jews to kill him, then he con
sented to his own death — refused, though perfectly
able, to defend and protect himself, and was, in
fact, a suicide.

We cannot reform the world by law or by super
stition. As long as there shall be pain and failure,

IS SUICIDE A SIN ? 385

want and sorrow, agony and crime, men and women
will untie life's knot and seek the peace of death.

To the hopelessly imprisoned — to the dishonored
and despised — to those who have failed, who have
no future, no hope — to the abandoned, the broken
hearted, to those who are only remnants and frag
ments of men and women — how consoling, how en
chanting is the thought of death !

And even to the most fortunate, death at last is a
welcome deliverer. Death is as natural and as mer
ciful as life. When we have journeyed long — when
we are weary — when we wish for the twilight, for
the dusk, for the cool kisses of the night — when the
senses are dull — when the pulse is faint and low —
when the mists gather on the mirror of memory —
when the past is almost forgotten, the present hardly
perceived — when the future has but empty hands —
death is as welcome as a strain of music.

After all, death is not so terrible as joyless life.
Next to eternal happiness is to sleep in the soft
clasp of the cool earth, disturbed by no dream,
by no thought, by no pain, by no fear, unconscious
of all and forever.

The wonder is that so many live, that in spite of
rags and want, in spite of tenement and gutter, of
filth and pain, they limp and stagger and crawl

386 is SUICIDE A SIN ?

beneath their burdens to the natural end. The
wonder is that so few of the miserable are brave
enough to die — that so many are terrified by the
" something after death" — by the spectres and
phantoms of superstition.

Most people are in love with life. How they cling
to it in the arctic snows — how they struggle in the
waves and currents of the sea — how they linger in
famine — how they fight disaster and despair ! On
the crumbling edge of death they keep the flag fly
ing and go down at last full of hope and courage.

But many have not such natures. They cannot
bear defeat. They are disheartened by disaster.
They lie down on the field of conflict and give the
earth their blood.

They are our unfortunate brothers and sisters.
We should not curse or blame — we should pity. On
their pallid faces our tears should fall.

One of the best men I ever knew, with an affec
tionate wife, a charming and loving daughter, com
mitted suicide. He was a man of generous impulses.
His heart was loving and tender. He was conscien
tious, and so sensitive that he blamed himself for
having done what at the time he thought was wise
and best. He was the victim of his virtues. Let us
be merciful in our judgments.

IS SUICIDE A SIN? 387

All we can say is that the good and the bad, the
loving and the malignant, the conscientious and the
vicious, the educated and the ignorant, actuated by
many motives, urged and pushed by circumstances
and conditions — sometimes in the calm of judgment,
sometimes in passion's storm and stress, sometimes
in whirl and tempest of insanity — raise their hands
against themselves and desperately put out the light
of life.

Those who attempt suicide should not be punished.
If they are insane they should if possible be restored
to reason ; if sane, they should be reasoned with,
calmed and assisted.

R. G. INGERSOLL.

\

COL. iNGERSOLL'S REPLY TO HIS CRITICS.

IN the article written by me about suicide the
ground was taken that " under many circum
stances a man has the right to kill himself."

This has been attacked with great fury by clergy
men, editors and the writers of letters. These peo
ple contend that the right of self-destruction does
not and cannot exist. They insist that life is the
gift of God, and that he only has the right to end
the days of men ; that it is our duty to bear the
sorrows that he sends with grateful patience. Some
have denounced suicide as the worst of crimes — worse
than the murder of another.

The first question, then, is :

Has a man under any circumstances the right to
kill himself?

A man is being slowly devoured by a cancer —
his agony is intense — his suffering all that nerves
can feel. His life is slowly being taken. Is this the
work of the good God ? Did the compassionate God

(388)

IS SUICIDE A SIN ? 389

create the cancer so that it might feed on the quiver-
ering flesh of this victim ?

This man, suffering agonies beyond the imagina
tion to conceive, is of no use to himself. His life is
but a succession of pangs. He is of no use to his wife,
his children, his friends or society. Day after day
he is rendered unconscious by drugs that numb the
nerves and put the brain to sleep.

Has he the right to render himself unconscious ?
Is it proper for him to take refuge in sleep ?

If there be a good God I cannot believe that he
takes pleasure in the sufferings of men — that he
gloats over the agonies of his children. If there
be a good God, he will, to the extent of his power,
lessen the evils of life.

So I insist that the man being eaten by the can
cer — a burden to himself and others, useless in
every way — has the right to end his pain and pass
through happy sleep to dreamless rest.

But those who have answered me would say to
this man : "It is your duty to be devoured. The
good God wishes you to suffer. Your life is the
gift of God. You hold it in trust and you have
no right to end it. The cancer is the creation of
God and it is your duty to furnish it with food."

Take another case : A man is on a burning ship,

39O IS SUICIDE A SIN?

the crew and the rest of the passengers have es
caped — gone in the lifeboats — and he is left alone.
In the wide horizon there is no sail, no sign of
help. He cannot swim. If he leaps into the sea
he drowns, if he remains on the ship he burns.
In any event he can live but a few moments.

Those who have answered me, those who insist
that under no circumstances a man has the right
to take his life, would say to this man on the deck,
" Remain where you are. It is the desire of your
loving, heavenly Father that you be clothed in
flame — that you slowly roast — that your eyes be
scorched to blindness and that you die insane with
pain. Your life is not your own, only the agony
is yours."

I would say to this man : Do as you wish. If
you prefer drowning to burning, leap into the sea.
Between inevitable evils you have the right of
choice. You can help no one, not even God, by
allowing yourself to be burned, and you can in
jure no one, not even God, by choosing the easier
death.

Let us suppose another case :

A man has been captured by savages in Central
Africa. He is about to be tortured to death. His
captors are going to thrust splinters of pine into

IS SUICIDE A SIN? 391

his flesh and then set them on fire. He watches
them as they make the preparations. He knows
what they are about to do and what he is about to
suffer. There is no hope of rescue, of help. He
has a vial of poison. He knows that he can take
it and in one moment pass beyond their power,
leaving to them only the dead body.

Is this man under obligation to keep his life be
cause God gave it, until the savages by torture
take it ? Are the savages the agents of the good
God ? Are they the servants of the Infinite ? Is
it the duty of this man to allow them to wrap his
body in a garment of flame ? Has he no right to
defend himself? Is it the will of God that he die
by torture ? What would any man of ordinary in
telligence do in a case like this? Is there room
for discussion ?

If the man took the poison, shortened his life a
few moments, escaped the tortures of the savages,
is it possible that he would in another world be
tortured forever by an infinite savage ?

Suppose another case : In the good old days,
when the Inquisition flourished, when men loved
their enemies and murdered their friends, many
frightful and ingenious ways were devised to touch
the nerves of pain.

392 IS SUICIDE A SIN ?

Those who loved God, who had been " born
twice," would take a fellow-man who had been
convicted of " heresy," lay him upon the floor of a
dungeon, secure his arms and legs with chains,
fasten him to the earth so that he could not move,
put an iron vessel, the opening downward, on his
stomach, place in the vessel several rats, then tie
it securely to his body. Then these worshipers
of God would wait until the rats, seeking food and
liberty, would gnaw through the body of the vic
tim.

Now, if a man about to be subjected to this tor
ture, had within his hand a dagger, would it excite
the wrath of the " good God," if with one quick
stroke he found the protection of death ?

To this question there can be but one answer.

In the cases I have supposed it seems to me
that each person would have the right to destroy
himself. It does not seem possible that the man
was under obligation to be devoured by a cancer ;
to remain upon the ship and perish in flame ; to
throw away the poison and be tortured to death by
savages ; to drop the dagger and endure the
" mercies " of the church.

If, in the cases I have supposed, men would have
the right to take their lives, then I was right when

is SUICIDE A SIN ? 393

I said that " under many circumstances a man has
a right to kill himself."

Second. — I denied that persons who killed them
selves were physical cowards. They may lack moral
courage ; they may exaggerate their misfortunes, lose

l

the sense of proportion, but the man who plunges
the dagger in his heart, who sends the bullet through
his brain, who leaps from some roof and dashes him
self against the stones beneath, is not and cannot be
a physical coward.

The basis of cowardice is the fear of injury or the
fear of death, and when that fear is not only gone,
but in its place is the desire to die, no matter by
what means, it is impossible that cowardice should ex
ist. The suicide wants the very thing that a coward
fears. He seeks the very thing that cowardice en
deavors to escape.

So, the man, forced to a choice of evils, choosing
the less is not a coward, but a reasonable man.

It must be admitted that the suicide is honest with
himself. He is to bear the injury ; if it be one.
Certainly there is no hypocrisy, and just as certainly
there is no physical cowardice.

Is the man who takes morphine rather than be
eaten to death by a cancer a coward ?

Is the man who leaps into the sea rather than be

394 is SUICIDE A SIN?

burned a coward ? Is the man that takes poison
rather than be tortured to death by savages or
"Christians" a coward?

Third. — I also took the position that some suicides
were sane ; that they acted on their best judgment,
and that they were in full possession of their minds.
Now, if under some circumstances, a man has the
right to take his life, and, if, under such circumstances,
he does take his life, then it cannot be said that he
was insane.

Most of the persons who have tried to answer me
have taken the ground that suicide is not only a
crime, but some of them have said that it is the
greatest of crimes. Now, if it be a crime, then the
suicide must have been sane. So all persons who
denounce the suicide as a criminal admit that he was
sane. Under the law, an insane person is incapa
ble of committing a crime. All the clergymen who
have answered me, and who have passionately as
serted that suicide is a crime, have by that assertion
admitted that those who killed themselves were
sane.

They agree with me, and not only admit, but as
sert that " some who have committed suicide were
sane and in the full possession of their minds."

It seems to me that these three propositions have

is SUICIDE A SIN? 395

been demonstrated to be true : First, that under
some circumstances a man has the right to take his
life ; second, that the man who commits suicide is
not a physical coward, and, third, that some who
have committed suicide were at the time sane and
in full possession of their minds.

Fourth. — I insisted, and still insist, that suicide
was and is the foundation of the Christian religion.

I still insist that if Christ were God he had the
power to protect himself without injuring his assail
ants — that having that power it was his duty to use
it, and that failing to use it he consented to his own
death and was guilty of suicide.

To this the clergy answer that it was self-sacri
fice for the redemption of man, that he made an
atonement for the sins of believers. These ideas
about redemption and atonement are born of a be
lief in the " fall of man," on account of the sins of
our first " parents," and of the declaration that " with
out the shedding of blood there is no remission of
sin." The foundation has crumbled. No intelligent
person now believes in the " fall of man" — that our
first parents were perfect, and that their descendants
grew worse and worse, at least until the coming of
Christ.

Intelligent men now believe that ages and ages

396 is SUICIDE A SIN ?

before the dawn of history, man was a poor, naked,
cruel, ignorant and degraded savage, whose lan
guage consisted of a few sounds of terror, of hatred
and delight ; that he devoured his fellow-man, hav
ing all the vices, but not all the virtues of the beasts ;
that the journey from the den to the home, the
palace, has been long and painful, through many
centuries of suffering, of cruelty and war ; through
many ages of discovery, invention, self-sacrifice and
thought.

Redemption and atonement are left without a fact
on which to rest. The idea that an infinite God,
creator of all worlds, came to this grain of sand,
learned the trade of a carpenter, discussed with
Pharisees and scribes, and allowed a few infuriated
Hebrews to put him to death that he might atone
for the sins of men and redeem a few believers from
the consequences of his own wrath, can find no
lodgment in a good and natural brain.

In no mythology can anything more monstrously
unbelievable be found.

But if Christ were a man and attacked the relig
ion of his times because it was cruel and absurd ; if
he endeavored to found a religion of kindness, of
good deeds, to take the place of heartlessness and
ceremony, and if, rather than to deny what he be-

is SUICIDE A SIN ? 397

lieved to be right and true, he suffered death,
then he was a noble man — a benefactor of his race.
But if he were God there was no need of this.
The Jews did not wish to kill God. If he had only
made himself known all knees would have touched
the ground. If he were God it required no heroism
to die. He knew that what we call death is but the
opening of the gates of eternal life. If he were
God there was no self-sacrifice. He had no need
to suffer pain. He could have changed the cruci
fixion to a joy.

Even the editors of religious weeklies see that
there is no escape from these conclusions — from
these arguments — and so, instead of attacking the
arguments, they attack the man who makes them.

Fifth. — I denounced the law of New York that
makes an attempt to commit suicide a crime.

It seems to me that one who has suffered so
much that he passionately longs for death should
be pitied, instead of punished — helped rather than
imprisoned.

A despairing woman who had vainly sought for
leave to toil, a woman without home, without
friends, without bread, with clasped hands, with
tear-filled eyes, with broken words of prayer, in
the darkness of night leaps from the dock, hoping,

398 is SUICIDE A SIN?

longing for the tearless sleep of death. She is
rescued by a kind, courageous man, handed over
to the authorities, indicted, tried, convicted, clothed
in a convict's garb and locked in a felon's cell.

To me this law seems barbarous and absurd, a
law that only savages would enforce.

Sixth. — In this discussion a curious thing has
happened. For several centuries the clergy have
declared that while infidelity is a very good thing
to live by, it is a bad support, a wretched consola
tion, in the hour of death. They have in spite of
the truth, declared that all the great unbelievers died
trembling with fear, asking God for mercy, sur
rounded by fiends, in the torments of despair.
Think of the thousands and thousands of clergy
men who have described the last agonies of Vol
taire, who died as peacefully as a happy child
smilingly passes from play to slumber ; the final
anguish of Hume, who fell into his last sleep as
serenely as a river, running between green and
shaded banks, reaches the sea ; the despair of
Thomas Paine, one of the bravest, one of the noblest
men, who met the night of death untroubled as a
star that meets the morning.

At the same time these ministers admitted that
the average murderer could meet death on the

is SUICIDE A SIN? 399

scaffold with perfect serenity, and could smilingly
ask the people who had gathered to see him killed
to meet him in heaven.

But the honest man who had expressed his hon
est thoughts against the creed of the church in
power could not die in peace. God would see to
it that his last moments should be filled with the
insanity of fear — that with his last breath he should
utter the shriek of remorse, the cry for pardon.

This has all changed, and now the clergy, in
their sermons answering me, declare that the athe
ists, the freethinkers, have no fear of death — that to
avoid some little annoyance, a passing inconven
ience, they gladly and cheerfully put out the light
of life. It is now said that infidels believe that
death is the end — that it is a dreamless sleep —
that it is without pain — that therefore they have
no fear, care nothing for gods, or heavens or hells,
nothing for the threats of the pulpit, nothing for
the day of judgment, and that when life becomes
a burden they carelessly throw it down.

The infidels are so afraid of death that they com
mit suicide.

This certainly is a great change, and I congrat
ulate myself on having forced the clergy to contra
dict themselves.

4OO IS SUICIDE A SIN ?

Seventh. — The clergy take the position that the
atheist, the unbeliever, has no standard of morality
— that he can have no real conception of right and
wrong. They are of the opinion that it is impos
sible for one to be moral or good unless he believes
in some Being far above himself.

In this connection we might ask how God can
be moral or good unless he believes in some Being
superior to himself?

What is morality ? It is the best thing to do
under the circumstances. What is the best thing
to do under the circumstances ? That which will
increase the sum of human happiness — or lessen
it the least. Happiness in its highest, noblest
form, is the only good ; that which increases or
preserves or creates happiness is moral — that which
decreases it, or puts it in peril, is immoral.

It is not hard for an atheist — for an unbeliever —
to keep his hands out of the fire. He knows that
burning his hands will not increase his well-being,
and he is moral enough to keep them out of the
flames.

So it may be said that each man acts according
to his intelligence — so far as what he considers his
own good is concerned. Sometimes he is swayed
by passion, by prejudice, by ignorance — but when

IS SUICIDE A SIN? 4OI

he is really intelligent, master of himself, he does
what he believes is best for him. If he is intelligent
enough he knows that what is really good for him is
o-ood for others — for all the world.

o

It is impossible for me to see why any belief in
the supernatural is necessary to have a keen per
ception of right and wrong. Every man who has
the capacity to suffer and enjoy, and has imagina
tion enough to give the same capacity to others,
has within himself the natural basis of all morality.
The idea of morality was born here, in this world,
of the experience, the intelligence of mankind.
Morality is not of supernatural origin. It did not
fall from the clouds, and it needs no belief in the
supernatural, no supernatural promises or threats,
no supernatural heavens or hells to give it force and
life. Subjects who are governed by the threats and
promises of a king are merely slaves. They are not
governed by the ideal, by noble views of right and
wrong. They are obedient cowards, controlled by
fear, or beggars governed by rewards — by alms.

Right and wrong exist in the nature of things.
Murder was just as criminal before as after the
promulgation of the Ten Commandments.

Eighth. — Many of the clergy, some editors and
some writers of letters who have answered me, have

40O IS SUICIDE A SIN ?

Seventh. — The clergy take the position that the
atheist, the unbeliever, has no standard of morality
— that he can have no real conception of right and
wrong. They are of the opinion that it is impos
sible for one to be moral or good unless he believes
in some Being far above himself.

In this connection we might ask how God can
be moral or good unless he believes in some Being
superior to himself?

What is morality ? It is the best thing to do
under the circumstances. What is the best thing
to do under the circumstances ? That which will
increase the sum of human happiness — or lessen
it the least. Happiness in its highest, noblest
form, is the only good ; that which increases or
preserves or creates happiness is moral — that which
decreases it, or puts it in peril, is immoral.

It is not hard for an atheist — for an unbeliever —
to keep his hands out of the fire. He knows that
burning his hands will not increase his well-being,
and he is moral enough to keep them out of the
flames.

So it may be said that each man acts according
to his intelligence — so far as what he Considers his
own good is concerned. Sometimes he is swayed
by passion, by prejudice, by ignorance — but when

IS SUICIDE A SIN? 4OI

he is really intelligent, master of himself, he does
what he believes is best for him. If he is intelligent
enough he knows that what is really good for him is
Sfood for others — for all the world.

o

It is impossible for me to see why any belief in
the supernatural is necessary to have a keen per
ception of right and wrong. Every man who has
the capacity to suffer and enjoy, and has imagina
tion enough to give the same capacity to others,
has within himself the natural basis of all morality.
The idea of morality was born here, in this world,
of the experience, the intelligence of mankind.
Morality is not of supernatural origin. It did not
fall from the clouds, and it needs no belief in the
supernatural, no supernatural promises or threats,
no supernatural heavens or hells to give it force and
life. Subjects who are governed by the threats and
promises of a king are merely slaves. They are not
governed by the ideal, by noble views of right and
wrong. They are obedient cowards, controlled by
fear, or beggars governed by rewards — by alms.

Right and wrong exist in the nature of things.
Murder was just as criminal before as after the
promulgation of the Ten Commandments.

Eighth. — Many of the clergy, some editors and
some writers of letters who have answered me, have

4O2 IS SUICIDE A SIN ?

said that suicide is the worst of crimes — that a man
had better murder somebody else than himself. One
clergyman gives as a reason for this statement that the
suicide dies in an act of sin, and therefore he had
better kill another person. Probably he would com
mit a less crime if he would murder his wife or
mother.

I do not see that it is any worse to die than to live
in sin. To say that it is not as wicked to murder
another as yourself seems absurd. The man about
to kill himself wishes to die. Why is it better for
him to kill another man, who wishes to live ?

To my mind it seems clear that you had better
injure yourself than another. Better be a spend
thrift than a thief. Better throw away your own
money than steal the money of another — better kill
yourself if you wish to die than murder one whose
life is full of joy.

The clergy tell us that God is everywhere, and
that it is one of the greatest possible crimes to rush
into his presence. It is wonderful how much they
know about God and how little about their fellow-
men. Wonderful the amount of their information
about other worlds and how limited their knowledge
is of this.

There may or may not be an infinite Being. I

IS SUICIDE A SIN ? 403

neither affirm nor deny. I am honest enough to
say that I do not know. I am candid enough to
admit that the question is beyond the limitations of
my mind. Yet I think I know as much on that
subject as any human being knows or ever knew,
and that is — nothing. I do not say that there is
not another world, another life ; neither do I say
that there is. I say that I do not know. It seems
to me that every sane and honest man must say the
same. But if there is an infinitely good God and
another world, then the infinitely good God will be
just as good to us in that world as he is in this. If
this infinitely good God loves his children in this
world, he will love them in another. If he loves a
man when he is alive, he will not hate him the in
stant he is dead.

If we are the children of an infinitely wise and
powerful God, he knew exactly what we would do
— the temptations that we could and could not
withstand — knew exactly the effect that every
thing would have upon us, knew under what cir
cumstances we would take our lives — and produced
such circumstances himself. It is perfectly ap
parent that there are many people incapable by
nature of bearing the burdens of life, incapable
of preserving their mental poise in stress and

404 IS SUICIDE A SIN ?

strain of disaster, disease and loss, and who by
failure, by misfortune and want, are driven to de
spair and insanity, in whose darkened minds there
comes like a flash of lightning in the night, the
thought of death, a thought so strong, so vivid,
that all fear is lost, all ties broken, all duties, all
obligations, all hopes forgotten, and naught remains
except a fierce and wild desire to die. Thousands
and thousands become moody, melancholy, brood
upon loss of money, of position, of friends, until
reason abdicates and frenzy takes possession of the
soul. If there be an infinitely wise and powerful
God, all this was known to him from the beginning,
and he so created things, established relations, put
in operation causes and effects, that all that has
happened was the necessary result of his own acts.

Ninth. — Nearly all who have tried to answer what
I said have been exceedingly careful to misquote
me, and then answer something that I never uttered.
They have declared that I have advised people who
were in trouble, somewhat annoyed, to kill them
selves ; that I have told men who have lost their
money, who had failed in business, who were not
good in health, to kill themselves at once, without
taking into consideration any duty that they owed
to wives, children, friends, or society.

IS SUICIDE A SIN ? 4O5

No man has a right to leave his wife to fight the
battle alone if he is able to help. No man has a
right to desert his children if he can possibly be of
use. As long as he can add to the comfort of those
he loves, as long as he can stand between wife and
misery, between child and want, as long as he can
be of any use, it is his duty to remain.

I believe in the cheerful view, in looking at the
sunny side of things, in bearing with fortitude the
evils of life, in struggling against adversity, in find
ing the fuel of laughter even in disaster, in having
confidence in to-morrow, in finding the pearl of joy
among the flints and shards, and in changing by the
alchemy of patience even evil things to good. I
believe in the gospel of cheerfulness, of courage and
good nature.

Of the future I have no fear. My fate is the fate
of the world — of all that live. My anxieties are
about this life, this world. About the phantoms
called gods and their impossible hells, I have no
care, no fear.

The existence of God I neither affirm nor deny,
I wait. The immortality of the soul I neither affirm
nor deny. I hope — hope for all of the children of
men. I have never denied the existence of another
world, nor the immortality of the soul. For many

406 IS SUICIDE A SIN ?

years I have said that the idea of immortality, that
like a sea has ebbed and flowed in the human heart,
with its countless waves of hope and fear beating
against the shores and rocks of time and fate, was
not born of any book, nor of any creed, nor of any
religion. It was born of human affection, and it will
continue to ebb and flow beneath the mists and
clouds of doubt and darkness as long as love kisses
the lips of death.

What I deny is the immortality of pain, the
eternity of torture.

After all, the instinct of self-preservation is strong.
People do not kill themselves on the advice of
friends or enemies. All wish to be happy, to enjoy
life ; all wish for food and roof and raiment, for
friends, and as long as life gives joy, the idea of
self-destruction never enters the human mind.

The oppressors, the tyrants, those who trample
on the rights of others, the robbers of the poor,
those who put wages below the living point, the
ministers who make people insane by preaching
the dogma of eternal pain ; these are the men who
drive the weak, the suffering and the helpless down
to death.

It will not do to say that God has appointed
a time for each to die. Of this there is, and there

IS SUICIDE A SIN ? 4O7

can be, no evidence. There is no evidence that
any god takes any interest in the affairs of men
— that any sides with the right or helps the weak,
protects the innocent or rescues the oppressed.
Even the clergy admit that their God, through all
ages, has allowed his friends, his worshipers, to
be imprisoned, tortured and murdered by his ene
mies. Such is the protection of God. Billions of
prayers have been uttered ; has one been answered ?
Who sends plague, pestilence and famine ? Who
bids the earthquake devour and the volcano to over
whelm ?

Tenth. — Again, I say that it is wonderful to me
that so many men, so many women endure and
carry their burdens to 'the natural end ; that so
many, in spite of "age, ache and penury," guard
with trembling hands the spark of life ; that pris
oners for life toil and suffer to the last ; that the
helpless wretches in poorhouses and asylums cling
to life ; that the exiles in Siberia, loaded with chains,
scarred with the knout, live on ; that the incurables,
whose every breath is a pang, and for whom the
future has only pain, should fear the merciful touch
and clasp of death.

It is but a few steps at most from the cradle to
the grave; a short journey. The suicide hastens,

408 IS SUICIDE A SIN ?

shortens the path, loses the afternoon, the twilight,
the dusk of life's day ; loses what he does not want,
what he cannot bear. In the tempest of despair, in
the blind fury of madness, or in the calm of thought
and choice, the beleaguered soul finds the serenity of
death.

Let us leave the dead where nature leaves them.
We know nothing of any realm that lies beyond the
horizon of the known, beyond the end of life. Let
us be honest with ourselves and others. Let us
pity the suffering, the despairing, the men and
women hunted and pursued by grief and shame, by
misery and want, by chance and fate until their only
friend is death.

ROBERT G. INGERSOLL.

SUICIDE A SIN.*

Question. Do you think that what you have
written about suicide has caused people to take
their lives ?

Answer. No, I do not. People do not kill them
selves because of the ideas of others. They are the
victims of misfortune.

Question. What do you consider the chief cause
of suicide ?

Answer. There are many causes. Some indi
viduals are crossed in love, others are bankrupt in
estate or reputation, still others are diseased in
body and frequently in mind. There are a thou
sand and one causes that lead up to the final act.

Question. Do you consider that nationality plays
a part in these tragedies ?

Answer. No, it is a question of individuals.
There are those whose sorrows are greater than
they can bear. These sufferers seek the peace of
death.

Question. Do you, then, advise suicide ?

•New York Journal, 1895. An Interview. (411)

412 INTERVIEWS ON SUICIDE.

Answer. No, I have never done so, but I have
said, and still say, that there are circumstances
under which it is justifiable for a person to take his
life.

Question. What do you think of the law which
prohibits self-destruction ?

Answer. That it is absurd and ridiculous. The
other day a man was tried before Judge Goff for
having tried to kill himself. I think he pleaded
guilty, and the Judge, after speaking of the terrible
crime of the poor wretch, sentenced him to the
penitentiary for two years. This was an outrage ;
infamous in every way, and a disgrace to our civil
ization.

Question. Do you believe that such a law will
prevent the frequency of suicides ?

Answer. By no means. After this, persons in
New York who have made up their minds to com
mit suicide will see to it that they succeed.

Question. Have your opinions been in any way
modified since your first announcement of them ?

Answer. No, I feel now as I have felt for many
years. No one can answer my articles on suicide,
because no one can satisfactorily refute them.
Every man of sense knows that a person being de
voured by a cancer has the right to take morphine,

INTERVIEWS ON SUICIDE. 413

and pass from agony to dreamless sleep. So, too,
there are circumstances under which a man has the
right to end his pain of mind.

Question. Have you seen in the papers that
many who have killed themselves have had on their
persons some article of yours on suicide ?

Answer. Yes, I have read such accounts, but I
repeat that I do not think these persons were led to
kill themselves by reading the articles. Many peo
ple who have killed themselves were found to have
Bibles or tracts in their pockets.

Question. How do you account for the presence
of the latter ?

Answer. The reason of this is that the theolo
gians know nothing. The pious imagine that their
God has placed us here for some wise and inscru
table purpose, and that he will call for us when he
wants us. All this is idiotic. When a man is of
no use to himself or to others, when his days and
nights are filled with pain and sorrow, why should
he remain to endure them longer ?

SUICIDE A SIN.*

COL. ROBERT G. INGERSOLL was seen at
his house and asked if he had read the Rev.
Merle St. Croix Wright's sermon.

Answer. Yes. I have read the sermon, and also
an interview had with the reverend gentleman.

Long ago I gave my views about suicide, and I
entertain the same views still. Mr. Wright's ser
mon has stirred up quite a commotion among the
orthodox ministers. This commotion may always be
expected when anything sensible comes from a pul
pit. Mr. Wright has mixed a little common sense
with his theology, and, of course this has displeased
the truly orthodox.

Sense is the bitterest foe that theology has. No
system of supernatural religion can outlive a good
dose of real good sense. The orthodox ministers
take the ground that an infinite Being created man,
put him on the earth and determined his days.
They say that God desires every person to live until
he, God, calls for his soul. They insist that we are

* ffan York Herald, 1887. An Interview, (414)

INTERVIEWS ON SUICIDE. 415

all on guard and must remain so until relieved by a
higher power — the superior officer.

The trouble with this doctrine is that it proves too
much. It proves that God kills every person who
dies as we say, " according to nature." It proves
that we ought to say, " according to God." It proves
that God sends the earthquake, the cyclone, the
pestilence, for the purpose of killing people. It
proves that all diseases and all accidents are his mes
sengers, and that all who do not kill themselves, die
by the act, and in accordance with the will of God.
It also shows that when a man is murdered, it is in
harmony with, and a part of the divine plan. When
God created the man who was murdered, he knew
that he would be murdered, and when he made the
man who committed the murder, he knew exactly
what he would do. So that the murder was the act
of God.

Can it be said that God intended that thousands
should die of famine and that he, to accomplish his
purpose, withheld the rain ? Can we say that he in
tended that thousands of innocent men should die in
dungeons and on scaffolds ?

Is it possible that a man, " slowly being devoured
by a cancer," whose days and nights are filled with
torture, who is useless to himself and a burden to

41 6 INTERVIEWS ON SUICIDE.

others, is carrying out the will of God ? Does God
enjoy his agony ? Is God thrilled by the music of
his moans — the melody of his shrieks ?

This frightful doctrine makes God an infinite mon
ster, and every human being a slave ; a victim.
This doctrine is not only infamous but it is idiotic.
It makes God the only criminal in the universe.

Now, if we are governed by reason, if we use our
senses and our minds, and have courage enough to
be honest ; if we know a little of the world's history,
then we know — if we know anything — that man has
taken his chances, precisely the same as other ani
mals. He has been destroyed by heat and cold, by
flood and fire, by storm and famine, by countless
diseases, by numberless accidents. By his intelli
gence, his cunning, his strength, his foresight, he has
managed to escape utter destruction. He has de
fended himself. He has received no supernatural
aid. Neither has he been attacked by any super
natural power. Nothing has ever happened in na
ture as the result of a purpose to benefit or injure
the human race.

Consequently the question of the right or wrong of
suicide is not in any way affected by a supposed ob
ligation to the Infinite.

All theological considerations must be thrown aside

INTERVIEWS ON SUICIDE. 4! 7

because we see and know that the laws of life are
the same for all living things — that when the con
ditions are favorable, the living multiply and life
lengthens, and when the conditions are unfavorable,
the living decrease and life shortens. We have no
evidence of any interference of any power superior
to nature. Taking into consideration the fact that all
the duties and obligations of man must be to his
fellows, to sentient beings, here in this world, and
that he owes no duty and is under no obligation to
any phantoms of the air, then it is easy to determine
whether a man under certain circumstances has the
right to end his life.

If he can be of no use to others — if he is of no
use to himself — if he is a burden to others — a curse
to himself — why should he remain ? By ending his
life he ends his sufferings and adds to the well-being
of others. He lessens misery and increases happi
ness. Under such circumstances undoubtedly a man
has the right to stop the pulse of pain and woo the
sleep that has no dream.

I do not think that the discussion of this question is
of much importance, but I am glad that a clergyman
has taken a natural and a sensible position, and that
he has reasoned not like a minister, but like a man.

When wisdom comes from the pulpit I am de-

41 8 INTERVIEWS ON SUICIDE.

lighted and surprised. I feel then that there is a little
light in the East, possibly the dawn of a better day.

I congratulate the Rev. Mr. Wright, and thank him
for his brave and philosophic words.

There is still another thing. Certainly a man has
the right to avoid death, to save himself from acci
dent and disease. If he has this right, then the
theologians must admit that God, in making his de
crees, took into consideration the result of such ac
tions. Now, if God knew that while most men
would avoid death, some would seek it, and if his
decrees were so made that they would harmonize
with the acts of those who would avoid death, can
we say that he did not, in making his decrees, take
into consideration the acts of those who would seek
death ? Let us remember that all actions, good, bad
and indifferent, are the necessary children of con
ditions — that there is no chance in the natural world
in which we live.

So, we must keep in mind that all real opinions
are honest, and that all have the same right to ex
press their thoughts. Let us be charitable.

When some suffering wretch, wild with pain,
crazed with regret, frenzied with fear, with desperate
hand unties the knot of life, let us have pity — Let
us be generous.

SUICIDE AND SANITY.*

Question. Is a suicide necessarily insane ? was
the first question, to which Colonel Ingersoll
replied :

Answer. No. At the same time I believe that a
great majority of suicides are insane. There are
circumstances under which suicide is natural, sensible
and right. When a man is of no use to himself,
when he can be of no use to others, when his life is
filled with agony, when the future has no promise
of relief, then I think he has the right to cast
the burden of life away and seek the repose of
death.

Question. Is a suicide necessarily a coward ?

Answer. I cannot conceive of cowardice in con
nection with suicide. Of nearly all things death is
the most feared. And the man who voluntarily
enters the realm of death cannot properly be called
a coward. Many men who kill themselves forget

•Neva York Press, 1897. An Interview. (419)

42O INTERVIEWS ON SUICIDE.

the duties they owe to others — forget their wives
and children. Such men are heartless, wicked,
brutal ; but they are not cowards.

Question. When is the suicide of the sane justi
fiable ?

Answer. To escape death by torture ; to avoid
being devoured by a cancer ; to prevent being
a burden on those you love ; when you can be of
no use to others or to yourself ; when life is un
bearable ; when in all the horizon of the future
there is no star of hope.

Question. Do you believe that any suicides have
been caused or encouraged by your declaration
three years ago that suicide sometimes was justifi
able ?

Answer. Many preachers talk as though I had
inaugurated, invented, suicide, as though no one
who had not read my ideas on suicide had ever
taken his own life. Talk as long as language lasts,
you cannot induce a man to kill himself. The man
who takes his own life does not go to others to find
reasons or excuses.

Question. On the whole is the world made better
or worse by suicides ?

Answer. Better by some and poorer by others.

Question. Why is it that Germany, said to be

INTERVIEWS ON SUICIDE. 421

the most educated of civilized nations, leads the
world in suicides ?

Answer. I do not know that Germany is the
most educated ; neither do I know that suicide is
more frequent there than in all other countries. I
know that the struggle for life is severe in Germany,
that the laws are unjust, that the government is op
pressive, that the people are sentimental, that they
brood over their troubles and easily become hope
less.

Question. If suicide is sometimes justifiable, is
not killing of born idiots and infants hopelessly
handicapped at birth equally so ?

Answer. There is no relation between the ques
tions — between suicides and killing idiots. Suicide
may, under certain circumstances, be right and kill
ing idiots may be wrong ; killing idiots may be right
and suicide may be wrong. When we look about
us, when we read interviews with preachers about
Jonah, we know that all the idiots have not been
killed.

Question. Should suicide be forbidden by law ?

Answer. No. A law that provides for the punish
ment of those who attempt to commit suicide is
idiotic. Those who are willing to meet death are
not afraid of law. The only effect of such a law

422 INTERVIEWS ON SUICIDE.

would be to make the person who had concluded to
kill himself a little more careful to succeed.

Question. What is your belief about virtue,
morality and religion ?

Answer. I believe that all actions that tend to
the well-being of sentient beings are virtuous and
moral. I believe that real religion consists in doing
good. I do not believe in phantoms. I believe in
the uniformity of nature ; that matter will forever
attract matter in proportion to mass and distance ;
that, under the same circumstances, falling bodies
will attain the same speed, increasing in exact pro
portion to distance ; that light will always, under the
same circumstances, be reflected at the same angle ;
that it will always travel with the same velocity ;
that air will forever be lighter than water, and gold
heavier than iron ; that all substances will be true to
their natures ; that a certain degree of heat will
always expand the metals and change water into
steam ; that a certain degree of cold will cause the
metals to shrink and change water into ice ; that all
atoms will forever be in motion ; that like causes
will forever produce like effects, that force will be
overcome only by force ; that no atom of matter
will ever be created or destroyed ; that the energy
in the universe will forever remain the same, noth-

INTERVIEWS ON SUICIDE. 423

ing lost, nothing gained ; that all that has been pos
sible has happened, and that all that will be possible
will happen ; that the seeds and causes of all
thoughts, dreams, fancies and actions, of all virtues
and all vices, of all successes and all failures, are in
nature ; that there is in the universe no power
superior to nature ; that man is under no obligation
to the imaginary gods ; that all his obligations
and duties are to be discharged and done in this
world ; that right and wrong do not depend on the
will of an infinite Being, but on the consequences of
actions, and that these consequences necessarily flow
from the nature of things. I believe that the uni
verse is natural.

IS AVARICE TRIUMPHANT?

Is AVARICE TRIUMPHANT?*

HP HERE are many people, in all countries, who
1 seem to enjoy individual and national decay.
They love to prophesy the triumph of evil. They
mistake the afternoon of their own lives for the
evening of the world. To them everything has
changed. Men are no longer honest or brave, and
women have ceased to be beautiful. They are dys
peptic, and it gives them the greatest pleasure to say
that the art of cooking has been lost.

For many generations many of these people occu
pied the pulpits. They lifted the hand of warning
whenever the human race took a step in advance.
As wealth increased, they declared that honesty and
goodness and self-denial and charity were vanishing
from the earth. They doubted the morality of well-
dressed people — considered it impossible that the
prosperous should be pious. Like owls sitting on
the limbs of a dead tree, they hooted the obsequies
of spring, believing it would come no more.

*A reply to General Rush Hawkins' article, "Brutality and Avarice Trium
phant, ' ' published in the North American Review, June, 1891. (427)

428 IS AVARICE TRIUMPHANT?

There are some patriots who think it their duty to
malign and slander the land of their birth. They
feel that they have a kind of Cassandra mission, and
they really seem to enjoy their work. They hon
estly believe that every kind of crime is on the in
crease, that the courts are all corrupt, that the legis
lators are bribed, that the witnesses are suborned,
that all holders of office are dishonest ; and they feel
like a modern Marius sitting amid the ruins of all the
virtues.

It is useless to endeavor to persuade these people
that they are wrong. They do not want arguments,
because they will not heed them. They need medi
cine. Their case is not for a philosopher, but for a
physician.

General Hawkins is probably right when he says
that some fraudulent shoes, some useless muskets,
and some worn-out vessels were sold to the Govern
ment during the war ; but we must remember that
there were millions and millions of as good shoes as
art and honesty could make, millions of the best
muskets ever constructed, and hundreds of the most
magnificent ships ever built, sold to the Government
during the same period. We must not mistake an
eddy for the main stream. We must also remember
another thing : there were millions of good, brave,

IS AVARICE TRIUMPHANT? 429

and patriotic men to wear the shoes, to use the mus
kets, and to man the ships.

So it is probably true that Congress was extrava
gant in land subsidies voted to railroads ; but that
this legislation was secured by bribery is preposter
ous. It was all done in the light of noon. There is
not the slightest evidence tending to show that the
general policy of hastening the construction of rail
ways through the Territories of the United States
was corruptly adopted — not the slightest. At the
same time, it may be that some members of Congress
were induced by personal considerations to vote for
such subsidies. As a matter of fact, the policy was
wise, and through the granting of the subsidies
thousands of miles of railways were built, and these
railways have given to civilization vast territories
which otherwise would have remained substantially
useless to the world. Where at that time was a
wilderness, now are some of the most thriving cities in
the United States — agreat,an industrious, and a happy
population. The results have justified the action of
Congress.

It is also true that some railroads have been
"wrecked" in the United States, but most of these
wrecks have been the result of competition. It is
the same with corporations as with individuals — the

43O IS AVARICE TRIUMPHANT ?

powerful combine against the weak. In the world of
commerce and business is the great law of the sur
vival of the strongest. Railroads are not eleemosy
nary institutions. They have but little regard for
the rights of one another. Some fortunes have been
made by the criminal "wrecking" of roads, but even
in the business of corporations honesty is the best
policy, and the companies that have acted in accord
ance with the highest standard, other things being
equal, have reaped the richest harvest.

Many railways were built in advance of a demand ;
they had to develop the country through which
they passed. While they waited for immigration,
interest accumulated ; as a result foreclosure took
place ; then reorganization. By that time the country
had been populated ; towns were springing up along
the line ; increased business was the result. On the
new bonds and the new stock the company paid in
terest and dividends. Then the ones who first in
vested and lost their money felt that they had been
defrauded.

So it is easy to say that certain men are guilty
of crimes — easy to indict the entire nation, and at
the same time impossible to substantiate one of the
charges. Everyone who knows the history of the
Star-Route trials knows that nothing was established

IS AVARICE TRIUMPHANT ? 431

against the defendants, knows that every effort was
made by the Government to convict them, and also
knows that an unprejudiced jury of twelve men,
never suspected of being improperly influenced, after
having heard the entire case, pronounced the de
fendants not guilty. After this, of course, any one
can say, who knows nothing of the evidence and who
cares nothing for the facts, that the defendants were
all guilty.

It may also be true that some settlers in the far
West have taken timber from the public lands, and
it may be that it was a necessity. Our laws and reg
ulations were such that where a settler was entitled
to take up a certain amount of land he had to take
it all in one place ; he could not take a certain num
ber of acres on the plains and a certain number of
acres in the timber. The consequence was that
when he settled upon the land — the land that he
could cultivate — he took the timber that he needed
from the Government land, and this has been called
stealing. So I suppose it may be said that the
cattle stole the Government's grass and possibly
drank the Government's water.

It will also be admitted with pleasure that stock
has been " watered " in this country. And what
is the crime or practice known as watering stock ?

432 IS AVARICE TRIUMPHANT ?

For instance, you have a railroad one hundred miles
long, worth, we will say, $3,000,000 — able to pay
interest on that sum at the rate of six per cent.
Now, we all know that the amount of stock issued
has nothing to do with the value of the thing rep
resented by the stock. If there was one share of
stock representing this railroad, it would be worth
three million dollars, whether it said on its face it
was one dollar or one hundred dollars. If there
were three million shares of stock issued on this
property, they would be worth one dollar apiece,
and, no matter whether it said on this stock that
each share was a hundred dollars or a thousand
dollars, the share would be worth one dollar — no
more, no less. If any one wishes to find the value
of stock, he should find the value of the thing
represented by the stock. It is perfectly clear that,
if a pie is worth one dollar, and you cut it into four
pieces, each piece is worth twenty-five cents ; and
if you cut it in a thousand pieces, you do not in
crease the value of the pie.

If, then, you wish to find the value of a share of
stock, find its relation to the thing represented by
all the stock.

It can also be safely admitted that trusts have been
formed. The reason is perfectly clear. Corpora-

IS AVARICE TRIUMPHANT? 433

tions are like individuals — they combine. Unfor
tunate corporations become socialistic, anarchistic,
and cry out against the abuses of trusts. It is
natural for corporations to defend themselves —
natural for them to stop ruinous competition by a
profitable pool ; and when strong corporations com
bine, little corporations suffer. It is with corpora
tions as with fishes — the large eat the little ; and it
may be that this will prove a public benefit in the
end. When the large corporations have taken pos
session of the little ones, it may be that the Govern
ment will take possession of them — the Government
being the largest corporation of them all.

It is to be regretted that all houses are not fire
proof; but certainly no one imagines that the peo
ple of this country build houses for the purpose of
having them burned, or that they erect hotels hav
ing in view the broiling.of guests. Men act as they
must ; that is to say, according to wants and neces
sities. In a new country the buildings are cheaper
than in an old one, money is scarcer, interest
higher, and consequently people build cheaply and
take the risks of fire. They do not do this on
account of the Constitution of the United States, or
the action of political parties, or the general idea
that man is entitled to be free. In the hotels of

434 IS AVARICE TRIUMPHANT?

Zurope it may be that there is not as great danger
of fire as of famine.

The destruction of game and of the singing birds
is to be greatly regretted, not only in this country,
but in all others. The people of America have been
too busy felling forests, ploughing fields, and build
ing houses, to cultivate, to the highest degree, the
aesthetic side of their natures. Nature has been
somewhat ruthless with us. The storms of winter
breasted by the Western pioneer, the whirlwinds of
summer, have tended, it may be, to harden some
what the sensibilities ; in consequence of which
they have allowed their horses and cattle to bear
the rigors of the same climate.

It is also true that the seal-fisheries are being
destroyed, in the interest of the present, by those
who care nothing for the future. All these things
are to be deprecated, are to be spoken against ; but
we must not hint, provided we are lovers of the
Republic, that such things are caused by free in
stitutions.

General Hawkins asserts that " Christianity has
neither preached nor practiced humanity towards
animals," while at the same time " Sunday school
children by hundreds of thousands are taught what
a terrible thing it is to break the Sabbath ; " that

IS AVARICE TRIUMPHANT? 436

" museum trustees tremble with pious horror at the
suggestion of opening the doors leading to the col
lections on that day," and that no protests have
come " from lawmakers or the Christian clergy."

Few people will suspect me of going out of my
way to take care of Christianity or of the clergy. At
the same time, I can afford to state the truth.
While there is not much in the Bible with regard to
practicing humanity toward animals, there is at
least this : " The merciful man is merciful to his
beast." Of course, I am not alluding now to the
example set by Jehovah when he destroyed the
cattle of the Egyptians with hailstones and diseases
on account of the sins of their owners.

In regard to the treatment of animals Christians
have been much like other people.

So, hundreds of lawmakers have not only pro
tested against cruelty to animals, but enough have
protested against it to secure the enactment of laws
making cruelty toward animals a crime. Henry
Bergh, who did as much good as any man who has
lived in the nineteenth century, was seconded in his
efforts by many of the Christian clergy not only, but
by hundreds and thousands of professing Christians
— probably millions. Let us be honest.

It is true that the clergy are apt to lose the dis-

436 IS AVARICE TRIUMPHANT ?

tinction between offences and virtues, to regard the
little as the important — that is to say, to invert the
pyramid.

It is true that the Indians have been badly treated.
It is true that the fringe of civilization has been
composed of many low and cruel men. It is true
that the red man has been demoralized by the vices
of the white. It is a frightful fact that, when a
superior race meets an inferior, the inferior imitates
only the vices of the superior, and the superior those
of the inferior. They exchange faults and failings.
This is one of the most terrible facts in the history
of the human race.

Nothing can be said to justify our treatment of
the Indians. There is, however, this shadow of an
excuse : In the old times, when we lived along the
Atlantic, it hardly occurred to our Ancestors that
they could ever go beyond the Ohio ; so the first
treaty with the Indians drove them back but a few
miles. In a little while, through immigration, the
white race passed the line, and another treaty was
made, forcing the Indians still further west ; yet the
tide of immigration kept on, and in a little while
again the line was passed, the treaty violated.
Another treaty was made, pushing the Indians still
farther toward the Pacific, across the Illinois, across

IS AVARICE TRIUMPHANT? 437

the Mississippi, across the Missouri, violating at
every step some treaty made ; and each treaty born
of the incapacity of the white men who made it to
foretell the growth of the Republic.

But the author of " Brutality and Avarice Trium
phant " made a great mistake when he selected the
last thirty years of our national life as the period
within which the Americans have made a change of
the national motto appropriate, and asserted that
now there should be in place of the old motto the
words, " Plundering Made Easy."

Most men believe in a sensible and manly patri
otism. No one should be blind to the defects in the
laws and institutions of his country. He should call
attention to abuses, not for the purpose of bringing
his country into disrepute, but that the abuses may
cease and the defects be corrected. He should do
what he can to make his country great, prosperous,
just, and free. But it is hardly fair to exaggerate
the faults of your country for the purpose of calling
attention to your own virtues, or to earn the praise
of a nation that hates your own. This is what might
be called wallowing in the gutter of reform.

The thirty years chosen as the time in which we
as a nation have passed from virtue to the lowest
depths of brutality and avarice are, in fact, the most

438 IS AVARICE TRIUMPHANT?

glorious years in the life of this or of any other
nation.

In 1861 slavery was, in a legal sense at least, a
national institution. It was firmly imbedded in the
Federal Constitution. The Fugitive Slave Law was
in full force and effect. In all the Southern and in
nearly all of the Northern States it was a crime to
give food, shelter, or raiment to a man or woman
seeking liberty by flight. Humanity was illegal,
hospitality a misdemeanor, and charity a crime.
Men and women were sold like beasts. Mothers
were robbed of their babes while they stood under
our flag. All the sacred relations of life were tram
pled beneath the bloody feet of brutality and avarice.
Besides, so firmly was slavery fixed in law and creed,
in statute and Scripture, that the tongues of honest
men were imprisoned. Those who spoke for the
slave were mobbed by Northern lovers of the
" Union."

Now, it seems to me that those were the days
when the motto could properly have been, " Plun
dering Made Easy." Those were the days of bru
tality, and the brutality was practiced to the end
that we might make money out of the unpaid labor
of others.

It is not necessary to go into details as to the cause

IS AVARICE TRIUMPHANT ? 439

of the then condition ; it is enough to say that the
whole nation, North and South, was responsible.
There were many years of compromise, and thousands
of statesmen, so-called, through conventions and
platforms, did what they could to preserve slavery
and keep the Union. These efforts corrupted politics,
demoralized our statesmen, polluted our courts, and
poisoned our literature. The Websters, Bentons,
and Clays mistook temporary expedients for prin
ciples, and really thought that the progress of the
world could be stopped by the resolutions of a packed
political convention. Yet these men, mistaken as
they really were, worked and wrought unconsciously
in the cause of human freedom. They believed that
the preservation of the Union was the one important
thing, and that it could not be preserved unless
slavery was protected — unless the North would be
faithful to the bargain as written in the Constitution.
For the purpose of keeping the nation true to the
Union and false to itself, these men exerted every
faculty and all their strength. They exhausted their
genius in showing that slavery was not, after all,
very bad, and that disunion was the most terrible
calamity that could by any possibility befall the na
tion, and that the Union, even at the price of slavery,
was the greatest possible blessing. They did not

44° K AVARICE TRIUMPHANT?

suspect that slavery would finally strike the blow for
disunion. But when the time came and the South
unsheathed the sword, the teachings of these men as
to the infinite value of the Union gave to our flag
millions of brave defenders.

Now, let us see what has been accomplished
during the thirty years of " Brutality and Ava
rice."

The Republic has been rebuilt and reunited, and
we shall remain one people for many centuries to
come. The Mississippi is nature's protest against
disunion. The Constitution of the United States is
now the charter of human freedom, and all laws in
consistent with the idea that all men are entitled to
liberty have been repealed. The black man knows
that the Constitution is his shield, that the laws pro
tect him, that our flag is his, and the black mother
feels that her babe belongs to her. Where the
slave-pen used to be you will find the schoolhouse.
The dealer in human flesh is now a teacher ; instead
of lacerating the back of a child, he develops and
illumines the mind of a pupil.

There is now freedom of speech. Men are allowed
to utter their thoughts. Lips are no longer sealed
by mobs. Never before in the history of our world
has so much been done for education.

IS AVARICE TRIUMPHANT ? 441

The amount of business done in a country on credit
is the measure of confidence, and confidence is based
upon honesty. So it may truthfully be said that,
where a vast deal of business is done on credit, an
exceedingly large per cent, of the people are re
garded as honest. In our country a very large per
cent, of contracts are faithfully fulfilled. Probably
there is no nation in the world where so much
business is done on credit as in the United States.
The fact that the credit of the Republic is second
to that of no other nation on the globe would seem
to be at least an indication of a somewhat general
diffusion of honesty.

The author of" Brutality and Avarice Triumphant"
seems to be of the opinion that our country was de
moralized by the war. They who fight for the right
are not degraded — they are ennobled. When men
face death and march to the mouths of the guns for
a principle, they grow great ; and if they come out of
the conflict, they come with added moral grandeur ;
they become better men, better citizens, and they
love more intensely than ever the great cause
for the success of which they put their lives in
pawn.

The period of the Revolution produced great men.
After the great victory the sons of the heroes degen-

442 IS AVARICE TRIUMPHANT ?

crated, and some of the greatest principles involved
in the Revolution were almost forgotten.

During the Civil war the North grew great and
the South was educated. Never before in the history
of mankind was there such a period of moral exalta
tion. The names that shed the brightest, the whitest
light on the pages of our history became famous
then. Against the few who were actuated by base
and unworthy motives let us set the great army that
fought for the Republic, the millions who bared their
breasts to the storm, the hundreds and hundreds of
thousands who did their duty honestly, nobly, and
went back to their wives and children with no thought
except to preserve the liberties of themselves and
their fellow-men.

Of course there were some men who did not do
their duty — some men false to themselves and to
their country. No one expects to find sixty-five
millions of saints in America. A few years ago a
lady complained to the president of a Western rail
road that a brakeman had spoken to her with great
rudeness. The president expressed his regret at
the incident, and said among other things :
" Madam, you have no idea how difficult it is for us
to get gentlemen to fill all those places."

It is hardly to be expected that the American

IS AVARICE TRIUMPHANT? 443

people should excel all others in the arts, in poetry,
and in fiction. We have been very busy taking
possession of the Republic. It is hard to over
estimate the courage, the industry, the self-denial it
has required to fell the forests, to subdue the fields,
to construct the roads, and to build the countless
homes. What has been done is a certificate of the
honesty and industry of our people.

It is not true that " one of the unwritten mottoes
of our business morals seem to say in the plainest
phraseology possible : ' Successful wrong is right.' '
Men in this country are not esteemed simply be
cause they are rich ; inquiries are made as to how
they made their money, as to how they use it. The
American people do not fall upon their knees before
the golden calf ; the worst that can be said is
that they think too much of the gold of the calf
— and this distinction is seen by the calves them
selves.

Nowhere in the world is honesty in business
esteemed more highly than here. There are
millions of business men — merchants, bankers, and
men engaged in all trades and professions — to whom
reputation is as dear as life.

There is one thing in the article " Brutality and
Avarice Triumphant " that seems even more objec-

444 Is AVARICE TRIUMPHANT ?

tionable than the rest, and that is the statement, or,
rather, the insinuation, that all the crimes and the
shortcomings of the American people can be ac
counted for by the fact that our Government is a
Republic. We are told that not long ago a French
official complained to a friend that he was compelled
to employ twenty clerks to do the work done by
four under the empire, and on being asked the rea
son answered : " It is the Republic." He was told
that, as he was the head of the bureau, he could
prevent the abuse, to which he replied : " I know
I have the power ; but I have been in this position
for more than thirty years, and am now too old to
learn another occupation, and I must make places
for the friends of the deputies. " And then it
is added by General Hawkins : " And so it is
here"

It seems to me that it cannot be fairly urged that
we have abused the Indians because we contend
that all men have equal rights before the law, or be
cause we insist that governments derive their just
powers from the consent of the governed. The
probability is that a careful reading of the history of
the world will show that nations under the control
of kings and emperors have been guilty of some
pruelty. To account for the bad we do by the good

IS AVARICE TRIUMPHANT? 445

we believe, is hardly logical. Our virtues should
not be made responsible for our vices.

Is it possible that free institutions tend to the
demoralization of men ? Is a man dishonest be
cause he is a man and maintains the rights of men ?
In order to be a moral nation must we be controlled
by king or emperor ? Is human liberty a mistake ?
Is it possible that a citizen of the great Republic at
tacks the liberty of his fellow-citizens ? Is he will
ing to abdicate ? Is he willing to admit that his
rights are not equal to the rights of others ? Is
he, for the sake of what he calls morality, willing
to become a serf, a servant or a slave ?

Is it possible that " high character is impracti
cable " in this Republic ? Is this the experience of
the author of " Brutality and Avarice Triumphant"?
Is it true that "intellectual achievement pays no
dividends " ? Is it not a fact that America is to-day
the best market in the world for books, for music,
and for art ?

There is in our country no real foundation for
these wide and sweeping slanders. This, in my
judgment, is the best Government, the best country,
in the world. The citizens of this Republic are, on
the average, better clothed and fed and educated
than any other people. They are fuller of life, more

446 IS AVARICE TRIUMPHANT ?

progressive, quicker to take advantage of the forces
of nature, than any other of the children of men.
Here the burdens of government are lightest, the
responsibilities of the individual greatest, and here,
in my judgment, are to be worked out the most
important problems of social science.

Here in America is a finer sense of what is due from
man to man than you will find in other lands. We
do not cringe to those whom chance has crowned ;
we stand erect.

Our sympathies are strong and quick. Generosity
is almost a national failing. The hand of honest
want is rarely left unfilled. Great calamities open the
hearts and hands of all.

Here you will find democracy in the family — re
publicanism by the fireside. Say what you will, the
family is apt to be patterned after the government.
If a king is at the head of the nation, the husband
imagines himself the monarch of the home. In this
country we have carried into the family the idea on
which the Government is based. Here husbands
and wives are beginning to be equals.

The highest test of civilization is the treatment of
women and children. By this standard America
stands first among nations.

There is a magnitude, a scope, a grandeur, about

IS AVARICE TRIUMPHANT ? 447

this country — an amplitude — that satisfies the heart
and the imagination. We have our faults, we have
our virtues, but our country is the best.

No American should ever write a line that can
be sneeringly quoted by an enemy of the great

Republic.

ROBERT G. INGERSOLL.

REPLY TO THE
GAZETTE AND TELEGRAPH.

A REPLY TO THE CINCINNATI GAZETTE AND
CATHOLIC TELEGRAPH.*

Question. Colonel, have you noticed the criticisms
made on your lectures by the Cincinnati Gazette and
the Catholic Telegraph f

Answer. I have read portions of the articles.

Question. What do you think of them ?

Answer. Well, they are hardly of importance
enough to form a distinct subject of thought.

Question. Well, what do you think of the attempted
argument of the Gazette against your lecture on
Moses ?

Answer. The writer endeavors to show that con
sidering the ignorance prevalent four thousand years
ago, God did as well as one could reasonably expect ;
that God at that time did not have the advantage of
telescope, microscope, and spectrum, and that for
this reason a few mistakes need not excite our
special wonder. He also shows that, although God
was in favor of slavery he introduced some reforms ;

* The Cincinnati Gazette, 1878. An Interview. (461)

452 REPLY TO THE GAZETTE AND TELEGRAPH.

but whether the reforms were intended to perpetuate
slavery or to help the slave is not stated. The ar
ticle has nothing to do with my position. I am
perfectly willing to admit that there is a land called
Egypt ; that the Jews were once slaves ; that they
got away and started a little country of their own.
All this may be true without proving that they were
miraculously fed in the wilderness, or that water ran
up hill, or that God went into partnership with
hornets or snakes. There may have been a man by
the name of Moses without proving that sticks were
turned into snakes.

A while ago a missionary addressed a Sunday
school. In the course of his remarks he said that he
had been to Mount Ararat, and had brought a stone
from the mountain. He requested the children to
pass in line before him so that they could all get a
look at this wonderful stone. After they had all
seen it he said: "You will as you grow up meet
people who will deny that there ever was a flood, or
that God saved Noah and the animals in the ark, and
then you can tell them that you know better, be
cause you saw a stone from the very mountain where
the ark rested."

That is precisely the kind of argument used in the
Gazette. The article was written by some one who

REPLY TO THE GAZETTE AND TELEGRAPH. 453

does not quite believe in the inspiration of the
Scriptures himself, and were it not for the fear of hell,
would probably say so.

I admit that there was such a man as Mohammed,
such a city as Mecca, such a general as Omar, but I
do not admit that God made known his will to Mo
hammed in any substantial manner. Of course the
Gazette would answer all this by saying that Mo
hammed did exist, and that therefore God must have
talked with him. I admit that there was such a gen
eral as Washington, but I do not admit that God
kept him from being shot. I admit that there is a
portrait of the Virgin Mary in Rome, but I do not
admit that it shed tears. I admit that there was such
a man as Moses, but I do not admit that God hunted
for him in a tavern to kill him. I admit that there
was such a priest as St. Denis, but I do not admit
that he carried his head in his hand, after it was cut
off, and swam the river, and put his head on again
and eventually recovered. I admit that the article
appeared in the Gazette, but I do not admit that it
amounted to anything whatever.

Question. Did you notice what the Catholic Tele
graph said about your lecture being ungrammatical ?

Answer. Yes ; I saw an extract from it. In the
Catholic Telegraph occurs the following : " The lee-

454 REPLY TO THE GAZETTE AND TELEGRAPH.

ture was a failure as brilliant as Ingersoll's flashes of
ungrammatical rhetoric." After making this state
ment with the hereditary arrogance of a priest, after
finding fault with my " ungrammatical rhetoric " he
then writes the following sentence : " It could not
boast neither of novelty in argument or of attractive
language." After this, nothing should be noticed that
this gentleman says on the subject of grammar.

In this connection it may be proper for me to say
that nothing is more remarkable than the fact that
Christianity destroys manners. With one exception,
no priest has ever written about me, so far as I know,
except in an arrogant and insolent manner. They
seem utterly devoid of the usual amenities of life.
Every one who differs with them is vile, ignorant and
malicious. But, after all, what can you expect of a
gentleman who worships a God who will damn
dimpled babes to an eternity of fire, simply because
they were not baptized.

Question. This Catholic writer says that the oldest
page of history and the newest page of science are
nothing more than commentaries on the Mosaic Rec
ord. He says the Cosmogony of Moses has been
believed in, and has been received as the highest truth
by the very brightest names in science. What do
you think of that statement ?

REPLY TO THE GAZETTE AND TELEGRAPH. 466

Answer. I think it is without the least foundation
in fact, and is substantially like the gentleman's the
ology, depending simply upon persistent assertion.

I see he quotes Cuvier as great authority. Cuvier
denied that the fossil animals were in any way re
lated to the animals now living, and believed that
God had frequently destroyed all life upon the earth
and then produced other forms. Agassiz was the
last scientist of any standing who ventured to throw
a crumb of comfort to this idea.

Question. Do you mean to say that all the great
living scientists regard the Cosmogony of Moses as
a myth ?

Answer. I do. I say this : All men of science
and men of sense look upon the Mosaic account as
a simple myth. Humboldt, who stands in the same
relation to science that Shakespeare did to the drama,
held this opinion. The same is held by the best
minds in Germany, by Huxley, Tyndall and Herbert
Spencer in England, by John W. Draper and others
in the United States. Whoever agrees with Moses
is some poor frightened orthodox gentleman afraid
of losing his soul or his salary, and as a rule, both
are exceedingly small.

Question. Some people say that you slander the
Bible in saying that God went into partnership with

REPLY TO THE GAZETTE AND TELEGRAPH.

hornets, and declare that there is no such passage in
the Bible.

Answer. Well, let them read the twenty-eighth
verse of the twenty-third chapter of Exodus, "And I
will send hornets before thee, which shall drive out
the Hivite, the Canaanite and the Hittite from before
thee."

Question. Do you find in lecturing through the coun
try that your ideas are generally received with favor ?

Answer. Astonishingly so. There are ten times
as many freethinkers as there were five years ago.
In five years more we will be in the majority.

Question. Is it true that the churches, as a general
thing, make strong efforts, as I have seen it stated,
to prevent people from going to hear you ?

Answer. Yes ; in many places ministers have
advised their congregations to keep away, telling
them I was an exceedingly dangerous man. The
result has generally been a full house, and I have
hardly ever failed to publicly return my thanks to
the clergy for acting as my advance agents.

Question. Do you ever meet Christian people
who try to convert you ?

Answer. Not often. But I do receive a great
many anonymous letters, threatening me with the
wrath of God, and calling my attention to the uncer-

REPLY TO THE GAZETTE AND TELEGRAPH. 457

tainty of life and the certainty of damnation. These
letters are nearly all written in the ordinary Christian
spirit ; that is to say, full of hatred and impertinence.

Question. Don't you think it remarkable that the
Telegraph^ a Catholic paper, should quote with ex
travagant praise, an article from such an orthodox
sheet as the Gazette f

Answer. I do not. All the churches must make
common cause. All superstitions lead to Rome ;
all facts lead to science. In a few years all the
churches will be united. This will unite all forms of
liberalism. When that is done the days of super
stition, of arrogance, of theology, will be numbered.
It is very laughable to see a Catholic quoting scien
tific men in favor of Moses, when the same men
would have taken great pleasure in swearing that
the Catholic Church was the worst possible organiza
tion. That church should forever hold its peace.
Wherever it has had authority it has destroyed
human liberty. It reduced Italy to a hand organ,
Spain to a guitar, Ireland to exile, Portugal to con
tempt. Catholicism is the upas tree in whose
shade the intellect of man has withered. The rec
ollection of the massacre of St. Bartholomew should
make a priest silent, and the recollection of the
same massacre should make a Protestant careful.

458 REPLY TO THE GAZETTE AND TELEGRAPH,

I can afford to be maligned by a priest, when the
same party denounces Garibaldi, the hero of Italy,
as a " pet tiger" to Victor Emmanuel. I could not
afford to be praised by such a man. I thank him
for his abuse.

Question. What do you think of the point that
no one is able to judge of these things unless he is
a Hebrew scholar ?

Answer. I do not think it is necessary to under
stand Hebrew to decide as to the probability of
springs gushing out of dead bones, or of the dead
getting out of their graves, or of the probability of
ravens keeping a hotel for wandering prophets. I
hardly think it is necessary even to be a Greek
scholar to make up my mind as to whether devils
actually left a person and took refuge in the bodies
of swine. Besides, if the Bible is not properly
translated, the circulation ought to stop until the
corrections are made. I am not accountable if God
made a revelation to me in a language that he
knew I never would understand. If he wishes to
convey any information to my mind, he certainly
should do it in English before he eternally damns
me for paying no attention to it.

Question. Are not many of the contradictions in
the Bible owing to mistranslations ?

REPLY TO THE GAZETTE AND TELEGRAPH. 459

Answer. No. Nearly all of the mistranslations
have been made to help out the text. It would be
much worse, much more contradictory had it been
correctly translated. Nearly all of the mistakes, as
Mr. Weller would say, have been made for the pur
poses of harmony.

Question. How many errors do you suppose
there are ?

Answer. Well, I do not know. It has been re
ported that the American Bible Society appointed a
committee to hunt for errors, and the said committee
returned about twenty-four to twenty-five thousand.
And thereupon the leading men said, to correct so
many errors will destroy the confidence of the com
mon people in the sacredness of the Scriptures.
Thereupon it was decided not to correct any. I
saw it stated the other day that a very prominent
divine charged upon the Bible Society that they
knew they were publishing a book full of errors.

Question. What is your opinion of the Rible
anyhow ?

Answer. My first objection is, it is not true.

Second. — It is not inspired.

Third. — It upholds human slavery.

Fourth. — It sanctions concubinage.

Fifth. — It commands the most infamously cruel

460 REPLY TO THE GAZETTE AND TELEGRAPH.

acts of war, such as the utter destruction of old men
and little children.

Sixth. — After killing fathers, mothers and brothers,
it commands the generals to divide the girls among
the soldiers and priests. Beyond this, infamy has
never gone. If any God made this order I am op
posed to him.

Seventh. — It upholds human sacrifice, or, at least,
seems to, from the following :

" Notwithstanding no devoted thing that a man
shall devote unto the Lord of all that he hath, both
of man and beast, and of the field of his possession,
shall be sold or redeemed ; every devoted thing is
most holy unto the Lord."

" None devoted, which shall be devoted, of men,
shall be redeemed ; but shall surely be put to death."
(Twenty-seventh Chapter of Leviticus, 28th and 2 9th
verses.)

Eighth. — Its laws are absurd, and the punishments
cruel and unjust. Think of killing a man for making
hair oil! Think of killing a man for picking up
sticks on Sunday !

Ninth. — It upholds polygamy.

Tenth. — It knows nothing of astronomy, nothing
of geology, nothing of any science whatever.

Eleventh. — It is opposed to religious liberty, and

REPLY TO THE GAZETTE AND TELEGRAPH. 46 1

teaches a man to kill his own wife if she differs with
him on religion ; that is to say, if he is orthodox.
There is no book in the world in which can be
found so much that is thoroughly despicable and in
famous. Of course there are some good passages,
some good sentiments. But they are, at least in the
Old Testment, few and far between.

Twelfth. — It treats woman like a beast, and man
like a slave. It fills heaven with tyranny, and earth
with hypocrisy and grief.

Question. Do you think any book inspired ?

Answer. No. I do not think any book is inspir
ed. But, if it had been the intention of this God to
give to man an inspired book, he should have waited
until Shakespeare's time, and used Shakespeare
as the instrument. Then there never would have
been any doubt as to the inspiration of the book.
There is more beauty, more goodness, more intelli
gence in Shakespeare than in all the sacred books of
this world.

Question. What do you think as a freethinker
of the Sunday question in Cincinnati ?

Answer. I think that it is a good thing to have a
day of recreation, a day of rest, a day of joy, not 'a
day of dyspepsia and theology. I am in favor of

462 REPLY TO THE GAZETTE AND TELEGRAPH.

operas and theaters, music and happiness on Sunday.
I am opposed to all excesses on any day. If the
clergy will take half the pains to make the people
intelligent that they do to make them superstitious,
the world will soon have advanced so far that it can
enjoy itself without excess. The ministers want
Sunday for themselves. They want everybody to
come to church because they can go no where else.
It is like the story of a man coming home at three
o'clock in the morning, who, upon being asked by
his wife how he could come at such a time of night,
replied, " The fact is, every other place is shut up."
The orthodox clergy know that their churches will
remain empty if any other place remains open. Do
not forget to say that I mean orthodox churches,
orthodox clergy, because I have great respect for
Unitarians and Universalists.

AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE COMEGYS.*

Question. I understand, Colonel Ingersoll, that you
have been indicted in the State of Delaware for the
crime of blasphemy ?

Answer. Well, not exactly indicted. The Judge,
who, I believe, is the Chief Justice of the State,
dedicated the new court-house at Wilmington to the
service of the Lord, by a charge to the grand jury,
in which he almost commanded them to bring in a
bill of indictment against me, for what he was pleased
to call the crime of blasphemy. Now, as a matter of
fact, there can be no crime committed by man
against God, provided always that a correct defini
tion of the Deity has been given by the orthodox
churches. They say that he is infinite. If so, he
is conditionless. I can injure a man by changing his
conditions. Take from a man water, and he perishes
of thirst ; take from him air, and he suffocates ;
he may die from too much, or too little heat. That

• Brooklyn Eagle, 1881. (4BB)

466 AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE COMEGYS.

is because he is a conditioned being. But if God is
conditionless, he cannot in any way be affected by
what anybody else may do ; and, consequently, a sin
against God is as impossible as a sin against the
principle of the lever or inclined plane. This crime
called blasphemy was invented by priests for the
purpose of defending doctrines not able to take care
of themselves. Blasphemy is a kind of breastwork
behind which hypocrisy has crouched for thousands
of years. Injustice is the only blasphemy that can be
committed, and justice is the only true worship. Man
can sin against man, but not against God. But even
if man could sin against God, it has always struck
me that an infinite being would be entirely able to
take care of himself without the assistance of a Chief
Justice. Men have always been violating the rights
of men, under the plea of defending the rights of God,
and nothing, for ages, was so perfectly delightful
to the average Christian as to gratify his revenge,
and get God in his debt at the same time. Chief
Justice Comegys has taken this occasion to lay up
for himself what he calls treasures in heaven, and on
the last great day he will probably rely on a certified
copy of this charge. The fact that he thinks the
Lord needs help satisfies me that in that particular
neighborhood I am a litttle ahead.

AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE COMEGYS. 467

The fact is, I never delivered but one lecture in
Delaware. That lecture, however, had been pre
ceded by a Republican stump speech ; and, to tell
you the truth, I imagine that the stump speech is
what a Yankee would call the heft of the offence.
It is really hard for me to tell whether I have blas
phemed the Deity or the Democracy. Of course I
have no personal feeling whatever against the Judge.
In fact he has done me a favor. He has called the
attention of the civilized world to certain barbarian
laws that disfigure and disgrace the statute books of
most of the States. These laws were passed when
our honest ancestors were burning witches, trading
Quaker children to the Barbadoes for rum and mo
lasses, branding people upon the forehead, boring
their tongues with hot irons, putting one another in
the pillory, and, generally, in the name of God, mak
ing their neighbors as uncomfortable as possible.
We have outgrown these laws without repealing
them. They are, as a matter of fact, in most com
munities actually dead ; but in some of the States,
like Delaware, I suppose they could be enforced,
though there might be trouble in selecting twelve
men, even in Delaware, without getting one man
broad enough, sensible enough, and honest enough,
to do justice. I hardly think it would be possible in

468 AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE COMEGYS.

any State to select a jury in the ordinary way that
would convict any person charged with what is com
monly known as blasphemy.

All the so-called Christian churches have accused
each other of being blasphemers, in turn. The
Catholics denounced the Presbyterians as blas
phemers, the Presbyterians denounced the Baptists ;
the Baptists, the Presbyterians, and the Catholics all
united in denouncing the Quakers, and they all to
gether denounced the Unitarians — called them blas
phemers because they did not acknowledge the divin
ity of Jesus Christ — the Unitarians only insisting that
three infinite beings were not necessary, that one
infinite being could do all the business, and that the
other two were absolutely useless. This was called
blasphemy.

Then all the churches united to call the Univer-
salists blasphemers. I can remember when a Uni-
versalist was regarded with a thousand times more
horror than an infidel is to-day. There is this
strange thing about the history of theology — nobody
has ever been charged with blasphemy who thought
God bad. For instance, it never would have excited
any theological hatred if a man had insisted that
God would finally damn everybody. Nearly all
heresy has consisted in making God better than the

AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE COMEGYS. 469

majority in the churches thought him to be. The
orthodox Christian never will forgive the Univer-
salist for saying that God is too good to damn any
body eternally. Now, all these sects have charged
each other with blasphemy, without anyone of them
knowing really what blasphemy is. I suppose they
have occasionally been honest, because they have
mostly been ignorant. It is said that Torquemada
used to shed tears over the agonies of his victims
and that he recommended slow burning, not because
he wished to inflict pain, but because he really de
sired to give the gentleman or lady he was burning
a chance to repent of his or her sins, and make his
or her peace with God previous to becoming a
cinder.

The root, foundation, germ and cause of nearly all
religious persecution is the idea that some certain
belief is necessary to salvation. If orthodox Chris
tians are right in this idea, then persecution of all
heretics and infidels is a duty. If I have the right
to defend my body from attack, surely I should have
a like right to defend my soul. Under our laws I
could kill any man who was endeavoring, for
example, to take the life of my child. How much
more would I be justified in killing any wretch who
was endeavoring to convince my child of the truth

47° AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE COMEGYS.

of a doctrine which, if believed, would result in the
eternal damnation of that child's soul ?

If the Christian religion, as it is commonly under
stood, is true, no infidel should be allowed to live ;
every heretic should be hunted from the wide world
as you would hunt a wild beast, They should not
be allowed to speak, they should not be allowed to
poison the minds of women and children ; in other
words, they should not be allowed to empty heaven
and fill hell. The reason I have liberty in this
country is because the Christians of this country do
not believe their doctrine. The passage from the
Bible, " Go ye into all the world and preach the
Gospel to every creature," coupled with the assur
ance that, " Whosoever believeth and is baptized
shall be saved, and whoso believeth not shall be dam
ned," is the foundation of most religious persecution.
Every word in that passage has been fire and fagot,
whip and sword, chain and dungeon. That one
passage has probably caused more agony among
men, women and children,' than all the passages of
all other books that were ever printed. Now, this
passage was not in the book of Mark when origin
ally written, but was put there many years after the
gentleman who evolved the book of Mark from his
inner consciousness, had passed away. It was put

AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE COMEGYS. 47 I

there by the church — that is to say, by hypocrisy
and priestly craft, to bind the consciences of men
and force them to come under ecclesiastical and
spiritual power; and that passage has been received

and believed, and been made binding by law in most

. • *

countries ever since.

What would you think of a law compelling a man
to admire Shakespeare, or calling it blasphemy to
laugh at Hamlet ? Why is not a statute neces
sary to uphold the reputation of Raphael or of
Michael Angelo ? Is it possible that God cannot
write a book good enough and great enough and
grand enough not to excite the laughter of his
children ? Is it possible that he is compelled to
have his literary reputation supported by the State
of Delaware ?

There is another very strange thing about this
business. Admitting that the Bible is the work of
God, it is not any more his work than are the sun,
the moon and the stars or the earth, and if for dis
believing this Bible we are to be damned forever,
we ought to be equally damned for a mistake in
geology or astronomy. The idea of allowing a man
to go to heaven who swears that the earth is flat,
and damning a fellow who thinks it is round, but who
has his honest doubts about Joshua, seems to me to

472 AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE COMEGYS.

be perfectly absurd. It seems to me that in this
view of it, it is just as necessary to be right on the
subject of the equator as on the doctrine of infant
baptism.

Question. What was in your judgment the motive
of Judge Comegys ? Is he a personal enemy of
yours ? Have you ever met him ? Have you any
idea what reason he had for attacking you ?

Answer. I do not know the gentleman, personally.
Outside of the political reason I have intimated, I
do not know why he attacked me. I once delivered a
lecture entitled "What must we do to be Saved ?" in
the city of Wilmington, and in that lecture I pro
ceeded to show, or at least tried to show, that
Matthew, Mark and Luke knew nothing about Chris
tianity, as it is understood in Delaware ; and I also
endeavored to show that all men have an equal right
to think, and that a man is only under obligations to
be honest with himself, and with all men, and that
he is not accountable for the amount of mind that he
has been endowed with — otherwise it might be Judge
Comegys himself would be damned — but that he is
only accountable for the use he makes of what little
mind he has received. I held that the safest thing
for every man was to be absolutely honest,and to ex
press his honest thought. After the delivery of this

* AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE COMEGYS. 473

lecture various ministers in Wilmington began re
plying, and after the preaching of twenty or thirty
sermons, not one of which, considered as a reply,
was a success, I presume it occurred to these ministers
that the shortest and easiest way would be to have
me indicted and imprisoned.

In this I entirely agree with them. It is the old
and time -honored way. I believe it is, as it always
has been, easier to kill two infidels than to answer
one ; and if Christianity expects to stem the tide that
is now slowly rising over the intellectual world, it
must be done by brute force, and by brute force
alone. And it must be done pretty soon, or they
will not have the brute force. It is doubtful if they
have a majority of the civilized world on their side
to-day. No heretic ever would have been burned if
he could have been answered. No theologian ever
called for the help of the law until his logic gave out.

I suppose Judge Comegys to be a Presbyterian.
Where did he get his right to be a Presbyterian ?
Where did he get his right to decide which creed is the
correct one ? How did he dare to pit his little brain
against the word of God ? He may say that his
father was a Presbyterian. But what was his grand
father ? If he will only go back far enough he will,
in all probability, find that his ancestors were Cath-

474 AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE COMEGYS.

olics, and if he will go back a little farther still, that
they were barbarians ; that at one time they were
naked, and had snakes tattooed on their bodies. What
right had they to change ? Does he not perceive
that had the savages passed the same kind of laws
that now exist in Delaware, they could have pre
vented any change in belief? They would have had
a whipping-post, too, and they would have said :
"Any gentleman found without snakes tattooed upon
his body shall be held guilty of blasphemy ; " and all
the ancestors of this Judge, and of these ministers,
would have said, Amen !

What right had the first Presbyterian to be a
Presbyterian ? He must have been a blasphemer
first. A small dose of pillory might have changed
his religion. Does this Judge think that Delaware is
incapable of any improvement in a religious point of
view? Does he think that the Presbyterians of
Delaware are not only the best now, but that they
will forever be the best that God can make ? Is
there to be no advancement ? Has there been no
advancement ? Are the pillory and the whipping
post to be used to prevent an excess of thought
in the county of New Castle ? Has the county
ever been troubled that way ? Has this Judge
ever had symptons of any such disease ? Now, I want

AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE COMEGYS. 475

it understood that I like this Judge, and my prin
cipal reason for liking him is that he is the last of his
race. He will be so inundated with the ridicule of
mankind that no other Chief Justice in Delaware, or
anywhere else, will ever follow his illustrious ex
ample. The next Judge will say : " So far as I am
concerned, the Lord may attend to his own business,
and deal with infidels as he may see proper." Thus
great good has been accomplished by this Judge,
which shows, as Burns puts it, " that a pot can be
boiled, even if the devil tries to prevent it."

Question. How will this action of Delaware, in
your opinion, affect the other States ?

Answer. Probably a few other States needed an
example exactly of this kind. New Jersey, in all
probability, will say : " Delaware is perfectly ridicu
lous," and yet, had Delaware waited awhile, New
Jersey might have done the same thing. Maryland
will exclaim : " Did you ever see such a fool ! "
And yet I was threatened in that State. The aver
age American citizen, taking into consideration the
fact that we are blest, or cursed, with about one
hundred thousand preachers, and that these preach
ers preach on the average one hundred thousand
sermons a week — some of which are heard clear
through — will unquestionably ho!4 that a man who

476 AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE COMEGYS.

happens to differ with all these parsons ought to
have and shall have the privilege of expressing his
mind ; and that the one hundred thousand clergy
men ought to be able to put down the one man who
happens to disagree with them, without calling on
the army or navy to do it, especially when it is
taken into consideration that an infinite God is
already on their side. Under these circumstances,
the average American will say : " Let him talk, and
let the hundred thousand preachers answer him to
their hearts' content." So that in my judgment the
result of the action of Delaware will be : First, to
liberalize all other States, and second, finally to
liberalize Delaware itself. In many of the States
they have the same idiotic kind of laws as those
found in Delaware — with the exception of those
blessed institutions for the spread of the Gospel,
known as the pillory and the whipping-post. There
is a law in Maine by which a man can be put into
the penitentiary for denying the providence of God,
and the day of judgment. There are similar laws
in most of the New England States. One can be
imprisoned in Maryland for a like offence.

In North Carolina no man can hold office that has
not a certain religious belief; and so in several
other of the Southern States. In half the States of

AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE COMEGYS. 477

this Union, if my wife and children should be mur
dered before my eyes, I would not be allowed in a
court of justice to tell who the murderer was. You
see that, for hundreds of years, Christianity has en
deavored to put the brand of infamy on every
intellectual brow.

Question. I see that one objection to your
lectures urged by Judge Comegys on the grand
jury is, that they tend to a breach of the peace — to
riot and bloodshed.

Answer. Yes ; Judge Comegys seems to be
afraid that people who love their enemies will mob
their friends. He is afraid that those disciples who,
when smitten on one cheek turn the other to be
smitten also, will get up a riot. He seems to im
agine that good Christians feel called upon to violate
the commands of the Lord in defence of the Lord's
reputation. If Christianity produces people who
cannot hear their doctrines discussed without raising
mobs, and shedding blood, the sooner it is stopped
being preached the better.

There is not the slightest danger of any infidel
attacking a Christian for his belief, and there never
will be an infidel mob for such a purpose. Chris
tians can teach and preach their views to their hearts'
content. They can send all unbelievers to an eternal

478 AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE COMEG\S.

hell, if it gives them the least pleasure, and they may
bang their Bibles as long as their fists last, but no
infidel will be in danger of raising a riot to stop them,
or put them down by brute force, or even by an ap
peal to the law, and I would advise Judge Comegys,
if he wishes to compliment Christianity, to change
his language and say that he feared a breach of the
peace might be committed by the infidels — not by
the Christians. He may possibly have thought that
it was my intention to attack his State. But I can
assure him, that if ever I start a warfare of that kind,
I shall take some State of my size. There is no
glory to be won in wringing the neck of a "Blue
Hen ! "

Question. I should judge, Colonel, that you are
prejudiced against the State of Delaware ?

Answer. Not by any means. Oh, no ! I know a
great many splendid people in Delaware, and since
I have known more of their surroundings, my admi
ration for them has increased. They are, on the
whole, a very good people in that State. I heard a
story the other day : An old fellow in Delaware has
been for the last twenty or thirty years gathering
peaches there in their season — a kind of peach
tramp. One day last fall, just as the season closed,
he was leaning sadly against a tree, " Boys ! " sa/d he,

AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE COMEGYS. 479

" I'd like to come back to Delaware a hundred years
from now." The boys asked, " What for ?" The
old fellow replied : " Just to see how damned little
they'd get the baskets by that time." And it oc
curred to me that people who insist that twenty-two
quarts make a bushel, should be as quiet as possible
on the subject of blasphemy.

AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE COMEGYS.*

Question. Have you read Chief Justice Comegys'
compliments to you before the Delaware grand
jury ?

Answer. Yes, I have read his charge, in which
he relies upon the law passed in 1 740. After read
ing his charge it seemed to me as though he had
died about the date of the law, had risen from the
dead, and had gone right on where he had left off.
I presume he is a good man, but compared with
other men, is something like his State when com
pared with other States.

A great many people will probably regard the
charge of Judge Comegys as unchristian, but I do
not. I consider that the law of Delaware is in exact
accord with the Bible, and that the pillory, the whip
ping-post, and the suppression of free speech are
the natural fruit of the Old and New Testament.

Delaware is right. Christianity can not succeed,
can not exist, without the protection of law. Take

• Chicago Times, Feb. 14, 1881. (480)

AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE COMEGYS. 481

from orthodox Christianity the protection of law,
and all church property would be taxed like other
property. The Sabbath would be no longer a day
devoted to superstition. Everyone could express
his honest thought upon every possible subject.
Everyone, notwithstanding his belief, could testify
in a court of justice. In other words, honesty
would be on an equality with hypocrisy. Science
would stand on a level, so far as the law is concern
ed, with superstition. Whenever this happens the
end of orthodox Christianity will be near.

By Christianity I do not mean charity, mercy,
kindness, forgiveness. I mean no natural virtue,
because all the natural virtues existed and had been
practiced by hundreds and thousands of millions be
fore Christ was born. There certainly were some
good men even in the days of Christ in Jerusalem,
before his death.

By Christianity I mean the ideas of redemp
tion, atonement, a good man dying for a bad man,
and the bad man getting a receipt in full. By
Christianity I mean that system that insists that in the
next world a few will be forever happy, while the
many will be eternally miserable. Christianity, as I
have explained it, must be protected, guarded, and
sustained by law. It was founded by the sword —

482 AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE COMEGYS.

that is to say, by physical force, — and must be pre
served by like means.

In many of the States of the Union an infidel is not
allowed to testify. In the State of Delaware, if Alex
ander von Humboldt were living, he could not be a
witness, although he had more brains than the State
of Delaware has ever produced, or is likely to pro
duce as long as the laws of 1 740 remain in force.
Such men as Huxley, Tyndall and Haeckel could
be fined and imprisoned in the State of Delaware,
and, in fact, in many States of this Union.

Christianity, in order to defend itself, puts the
brand of infamy on the brow of honesty. Christian
ity marks with a letter " C," standing for " convict"
every brain that is great enough to discover the
frauds. I have no doubt that Judge Comegys
is a good and sincere Christian. I believe that
he, in his charge, gives an exact reflection of the
Jewish Jehovah. I believe that every word he
said was in exact accord with the spirit of orthodox
Christianity. Against this man personally I have
nothing to say. I know nothing of his character
except as I gather it from this charge, and after
reading the charge I am forced simply to say, Judge
Comegys is a Christian.

It seems, however, that the grand jury dared to

AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE COMEGYS. 483

take no action, notwithstanding they had been
counseled to do so by the Judge. Although the
Judge had quoted to them the words of George I.
of blessed memory ; although he had quoted to
them the words of Lord Mansfield, who became a
Judge simply because of his hatred of the English
colonists, simply because he despised liberty in the
new world ; notwithstanding the fact that I could
have been punished with insult, with imprisonment,
and with stripes, and with every form of degrada
tion ; notwithstanding that only a few years ago I
could have been branded upon the forehead, bored
through the tongue, maimed and disfigured, still,
such has been the advance even in the State of
Delaware, owing, it may be, in great part to the one
lecture delivered by me, that the grand jury abso
lutely refused to indict me.

The grand jury satisfied themselves and their
consciences simply by making a report in which
they declared that my lecture had " no parallel in the
habits of respectable vagabondism ;" that I was* 'an
arch-blasphemer and reviler of God and religion,"
and recommended that should I ever attempt to
lecture again I should be taught that in Delaware
blasphemy is a crime punishable by fine and im
prisonment. I have no doubt that every mem-

484 AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE COMEGYS.

her of the grand jury signing this report was entirely
honest ; that he acted in exact accord with what he
understood to be the demand of the Christian re
ligion. I must admit that for Christians, the report is
exceedingly mild and gentle.

I have now in the house, letters that passed be
tween certain bishops in the fifteenth century, in
which they discussed the propriety of cutting out the
tongues of heretics before they were burned. Some
of the bishops were in favor of and some against it.
One argument for cutting out their tongues which
seemed to have settled the question was, that unless
the tongues of heretics were cut out they might
scandalize the gentlemen who were burning them,
by blasphemous remarks during the fire. I would
commend these letters to Judge Comegys and the
members of the grand jury.

I want it distinctly understood that I have noth
ing against Judge Comegys or the grand jury. They
act as 'most anybody would, raised in Delaware,
in the shadow of the whipping-post and the pil
lory. We must remember that Delaware was a
slave State ; that the Bible became extremely dear
to the people because it upheld that peculiar institu
tion. We must remember that the Bible was the
block on which mother and child stood for sale when

AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE COMEGYS. 486

they were separated by the Christians of Delaware.
The Bible was regarded as the title-pages to slavery,
and as the book of all books that gave the right
to masters to whip mothers and to sell children.

There are many offences now for which the punish
ment is whipping and standing in the pillory ; where
persons are convicted of certain crimes and sent
to the penitentiary, and upon being discharged from
the penitentiary are furnished by the State with a
dark jacket plainly marked on the back with a large
Roman " C," the letter to be of a light color. This
they are to wear for six months after being discharged,
and if they are found at any time without the dark
jacket and the illuminated " C" they are to be pun
ished with twenty lashes upon the bare back. The
object, I presume, of this law, is to drive from the
State all the discharged convicts for the benefit of
New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Maryland — that is to
say, other Christian communities. A cruel people
make cruel laws.

The objection I have to the whipping-post is
that it is a punishment which cannot be inflicted
by a gentleman. The person who administers the
punishment must, of necessity, be fully as degraded
as the person who receives it. I am opposed to any
kind of punishment that cannot be administered by

486 AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE COMEGYS.

a gentleman. I am opposed to corporal punishment
everywhere. It should be taken from the asylums
and penitentiaries, and any man who would apply
the lash to the naked back of another is beneath the
contempt of honest people.

Question. Have you seen that Henry Bergh has
introduced in the New York Legislature a bill pro
viding for whipping as a punishment for wife-beat
ing ?

Answer. The objection I have mentioned is fatal
to Mr. Bergh's bill. He will be able to get persons
to beat wife-beaters, who, under the same circum
stances, would be wife-beaters themselves. If they
are not wife-beaters when they commence the business
of beating others, they soon will be. I think that wife-
beating in great cities could be stopped by putting
all the wife-beaters at work at some government em
ployment, the value of the work, however, to go to
the wives and children. The trouble now is that
most of the wife-beating is among the extremely
poor, so that the wife by informing against her hus
band, takes the last crust out of her own mouth. If
you substitute whipping or flogging for the prison
here, you wjll in the first place prevent thousands
of wives from informing, and in many cases, where
the wife would inform, she would afterward be

AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE COMEGYS. 487

murdered by the flogged brute. This brute would
naturally resort to the same means to reform his
wife that the State had resorted to for the purpose
of reforming him. Flogging would beget flogging.
Mr. Bergh is a man of great kindness of heart.
When he reads that a wife has been beaten, he says
the husband deserves to be beaten himself. But if Mr.
Bergh was to be the executioner, I imagine you could
not prove by the back of the man that the punishment
had been inflicted.

Another good remedy for wife-beating is the
abolition of the Catholic Church. We should also
do away with the idea that a marriage is a sac
rament, and that there is any God who is ren
dered happy by seeing a husband and wife live to
gether, although the husband gets most of his earthly
enjoyment from whipping his wife. No woman
should live with a man a moment after he has struck
her. Just as the idea of liberty enlarges, confidence
in the whip and fist, in the kick and blow, will dimin
ish. Delaware occupies toward freethinkers pre
cisely the same position that a wife -beater does to
ward the wife. Delaware knows that there are no
reasons sufficient to uphold Christianity, conse
quently these reasons are supplemented with the
pillory and the whipping-post. The whipping-post

488 AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE COMEGYS.

is considered one of God's arguments, and the pillory
is a kind of moral suasion, the use of which fills
heaven with a kind of holy and serene delight. I
am opposed to the religion of brute force, but all
these frightful things have grown principally out of
a belief in eternal punishment and out of the further
idea that a certain belief is necessary to avoid eternal
pain.

If Christianity is right, Delaware is right. If
God will damn every body forever simply for being
intellectually honest, surely he ought to allow the
good people of Delaware to imprison the same gentle
man for two months. Of course there are thousands
and thousands of good people in Delaware, people
who have been in other States, people who have
listened to Republican speeches, people who have
read the works of scientists, who hold the laws of
1 740 in utter abhorrence ; people who pity Judge
Comegys and who have a kind of sympathy for the
grand jury.

You will see that at the last election Delaware
lacked only six or seven hundred of being a civilized
State, and probably in 1884 will stand redeemed and
regenerated, with the laws of 1 740 expunged from
the statute book. Delaware has not had the best of
opportunities. You must remember that it is next

AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE COMEGYS. 489

to New Jersey, which is quite an obstacle in the
path of progress. It is just beyond Maryland,
which is another obstacle. I heard the other day
that God originally made oysters with legs, and
afterward took them off, knowing that the people
of Delaware would starve to death before they
would run to catch anything. Judge Comegys is
the last judge who will make such a charge in the
United States. He has immortalized himself as the
last mile -stone on that road. He is the last of
his race. No more can be born. Outside of this
he probably was a very clever man, and it may be,
he does not believe a word he utters. The probability
is that he has underestimated the intelligence of the
people of Delaware. I am afraid to think that he is
entirely honest, for fear that I may underestimate
him intellectually, and overestimate him morally.
Nothing could tempt me to do this man injustice,
though I could hardly add to the injury he has done
himself. He has called attention to laws that ought
to be repealed, and to lectures that ought to be re
peated. I feel in my heart that he has done me a
great service, second only to that for which I am
indebted to the grand jury. Had the Judge known
me personally he probably would have said nothing.
Should I have the misfortune to be arrested in his
State and sentenced to two months of solitary con-

490 AN INTERVIEW ON CHIEF JUSTICE COMEGYS.

finement, the Judge having become acquainted with
me during the trial, would probably insist on spend
ing most of his time in my cell. At the end of the
two months he would, I think, lay himself liable to
the charge of blasphemy, providing he had honor
enough to express his honest thought. After all, it
is all a question of honesty. Every man is right. I
cannot convince myself there is any God who will
ever damn a man for having been honest. This
gives me a certain hope for the Judge and the grand
jury.

For two or three days I have been thinking
what joy there must have been in heaven when
Jehovah heard that Delaware was on his side, and
remarked to the angels in the language of the late
Adjt. Gen. Thomas : " The eyes of all Delaware are
upon you."

REPLY TO
REV. DRS. THOMAS AND LORIMER.

A REPLY TO REV'D DRS. THOMAS AND LORIMER.*

Ladies and Gentlemen :

WHEREVER I lecture, as a rule, some
ministers think it their duty to reply for the
purpose of showing either that I am unfair, or that
I am blasphemous, or that I laugh. And laughing
has always been considered by theologians as a
crime. Ministers have always said you will have no
respect for our ideas unless you are solemn. Solem
nity is a condition precedent to believing anything
without evidence. And if you can only get a man
solemn enough, awed enough, he will believe any
thing.

In this city the Rev. Dr. Thomas has made a few
remarks, and I may say by way of preface that I
have always held him in the highest esteem. He
struggles, according to his statement, with the
problem of my sincerity, and he about half concludes
that I am not sincere. There is a little of the

•Col. Ingersoll filled McVicker's Theatre again yesterday afternoon, when he
answered the question ' ' What Must We Do to Be Saved f ' ' But before doing so he
replied to the recent criticisms of city clergymen on his ' ' Talmagian Theology." —
Chicago Tribune, Nov. 27, 1882. (493)

494 REPLY TO REV. DRS. THOMAS AND LORIMER.

minister left in Dr. Thomas. Ministers always
account for a difference of opinion by attacking the
motive. Now, to him, it makes no difference
whether I am sincere or insincere ; the question is,
Can my argument be answered ? Suppose you
could prove that the maker of the multiplication
table held mathematics in contempt ; what of it ?
Ten times ten would be a hundred still.

My sincerity has nothing to do with the force of
the argument — not the slightest. But this gentle
man begins to suspect that I am doing what I do for
the sake of applause. What a commentary on the
Christian religion, that, after they have been preach
ing it for sixteen or eighteen hundred years, a man
attacks it for the sake of popularity — a man attacks
it for the purpose of winning applause ! When I
commenced to speak upon this subject there was no
appreciable applause ; most of my fellow-citizens
differed with me ; and I was denounced as though I
had been a wild beast. But I have lived to see the
majority of the men and women of intellect in the
United States on my side ; I have lived to see the
church deny her creed ; I have lived to see ministers
apologize in public for what they preached ; and a
great and glorious work is going on until, in a little
while, you will not find one of them, unless it is

REPLY TO REV. DRS. THOMAS AND LORIMER. 495

some old petrifaction of the red-stone period, who
will admit that he ever believed in the Trinity, in
the Atonement, or in the doctrine of Eternal Agony.
The religion preached in the pulpits does not satisfy
the intellect of America, and if Dr. Thomas wishes
to know why people go to hear infidelity it is this :
Because they are not satisfied with the orthodox
Christianity of the day. That is the reason. They
are beginning to hold it in contempt.

But this gentleman imagines that I am insincere
because I attacked certain doctrines of the Bible.
I attacked the doctrine of eternal pain. I hold it in
infinite and utter abhorrence. And if there be a
God in this universe who made a hell ; if there be a
God in this universe who denies to any human
being the right of reformation, then that God is not
good, that God is not just, and the future of man is
infinitely dark. I despise that doctrine, and I have
done what little I could to get that horror from the
cradle, that horror from the hearts of mothers, that
horror from the hearts of husbands and fathers, and
sons, and brothers, and sisters. It is a doctrine that
turns to ashes all the humanities of life and all the
hopes of mankind. I despise it.

And the gentleman also charges that I am wanting
in reverence. I admit here to-day that I have no

496 REPLY TO REV. DRS. THOMAS AND LORIMER.

reverence for a falsehood. I do not care how old it
is, and I do not care who told it, whether the men
were inspired or not. I have no reverence for what
I believe to be false, and in determining what is
false I go by my reason. And whenever another
man gives me an argument I examine it. If it is
good I follow it. If it is bad I throw it away. I
have no reverence for any book that upholds human
slavery. I despise such a book. I have no rever
ence for any book that upholds or palliates the
infamous institution of polygamy. I have no rever
ence for any book that tells a husband to kill his
wife if she differs with him upon the subject of
religion. I have no reverence for any book that
defends wars of conquest and extermination. I have
no reverence for a God that orders his legions to
slay the old and helpless, and to whet the edge
of the sword with the blood of mothers and
babes. I have no reverence for such a book ;
neither have I any reverence for the author of
that book. No matter whether he be God or man,
I have no reverence. I have no reverence for the
miracles of the Bible. I have no reverence for the
story that God allowed bears to tear children in
pieces. I have no reverence for the miraculous, but
I have reverence for the truth, for justice, for charity,

REPLY TO REV. DRS. THOMAS AND LORIMER. 497

for humanity, for intellectual liberty, and for human
progress.

I have the right to do my own thinking. I
am going to do it. I have never met any minister
that I thought had brain enough to think for himself
and for me too. I do my own. I have no rever
ence for barbarism, no matter how ancient it may
be, and no reverence for the savagery of the Old
Testament; no reverence for the malice of the New.
And let me tell you here to-night that the Old Testa
ment is a thousand times better than the New. The
Old Testament threatened no vengeance beyond
the grave. God was satisfied when his enemy was
dead. It was reserved for the New Testament — it
was reserved for universal benevolence — to rend
the veil between time and eternity and fix the
horrified gaze of man upon the abyss of hell. The
New Testament is just as much worse than the Old,
as hell is worse than sleep. And yet it is the fashion
to say that the Old Testament is bad and that the
New Testament is good. I have no reverence for
any book that teaches a doctrine contrary to my
reason ; no reverence for any book that teaches a
doctrine contrary to my heart ; and, no matter how
old it is, no matter how many have believed it, no
matter how many have died on account of it, no

REPLY TO REV. DRS. THOMAS AND LORIMER.

matter how many live for it, I have no reverence for
that book, and I am glad of it.

Dr. Thomas seems to think that I should approach
these things with infinite care, that I should not
attack slavery, or polygamy, or religious persecution,
but that I should " mildly suggest " — mildly, — should
not hurt anybody's feelings. When I go to church
the ministers tell me I am going to hell. When I
meet one I tell him, "There is no hell," and he says :
" What do you want to hurt our feelings for ? " He
wishes me mildly to suggest that the sun and moon
did not stop, that may be the bears only frightened
the children, and that, after all, Lot's wife was only
scared. Why, there was a minister in this city of
Chicago who imagined that his congregation were
progressive, and, in his pulpit, he said that he did
not believe the story of Lot's wife —said that he did
not think that any sensible man would believe that
a woman was changed into salt ; and they tried him,
and the congregation thought he was entirely too
fresh. And finally he went before that church and
admitted that he was mistaken, and owned up to
the chloride of sodium, and said : " I not only take
the Bible cum grano salis, but with a whole bar-
relful."

My doctrine is, if you do not believe a thing, say

REPLY TO REV. DRS. THOMAS AND LORIMER. 499

so say so ; no need of going away around the bush
and suggesting may be, perhaps, possibly, peradven-
ture. That is the ministerial way, but I do not like it.

I am also charged with making an onslaught
upon the good as well as the bad. I say here to
day that never in my life have I said one word
against honesty, one word against liberty, one word
against charity, one word against any institution that
is good. I attack the bad, not the good, and I
would like to have some minister point out in some
lecture or speech that I have delivered, one word
against the good, against the highest happiness of
the human race.

I have said all I was able to say in favor of
justice, in favor of liberty, in favor of home, in favor
of wife and children, in favor of progress, and in
favor of universal kindness ; but not one word in
favor of the bad, and I never expect to.

Dr. Thomas also attacks my statement that the
brain thinks in spite of us.

Doesn't it ? Can any man tell what he is going
to think to-morrow ? You see, you hear, you taste,
you feel, you smell — these are the avenues by which
Nature approaches the brain, the consequence of
this is thought, and you cannot by any possibility
help thinking.

5OO REPLY TO REV. DRS. THOMAS AND LORIMER.

Neither can you determine what you will think.
These impressions are made independently of your
will. " But," says this reverend doctor, "Whence
comes this conception of space ? " I can tell him.
There is such a thing as matter. We conceive
that matter occupies room — space — and, in our
minds, space is simply the opposite of matter. And
it comes naturally — not supernaturally.

Does the gentleman contend there had to be a
revelation of God for us to conceive of a place where
there is nothing ? We know there is something.
We can think of the opposite of something, and
therefore we say space. " But," says this gentleman,
" Where do we get the idea of good and bad? " I
can tell him ; no trouble about that. Every man has
the capacity to enjoy and the capacity to suffer —
every man. Whenever a man enjoys himself he
calls that good ; whenever he suffers he calls that
bad. The animals that are useful to him he calls
good ; the poisonous, the hurtful, he calls bad.
The vegetables that he can eat and use he calls
good ; those that are of no use except to choke
the growth of the good ones, he calls bad. When
the sun shines, when everything in nature is out that
ministers to him, he says " this is good ;" when the
storm comes and blows down his hut, when the frost

REPLY TO REV. DRS. THOMAS AND LORIMER. 50 I

comes and lays down his crop, he says " this is bad."
And all phenomena that affect men well he calls
good ; all that affect him ill he calls bad.

Now, then, the foundation of the idea of right and
wrong is the effect in nature that we are capable of
enjoying or capable of suffering. That is the founda
tion of conscience ; and if man could not suffer, if man
could not enjoy, we never would have dreamed of the
word conscience; and the words right and wrong
never could have passed human lips. There are no
supernatural fields. We get our ideas from experi
ence — some of them from our forefathers, many from
experience. A man works — food does not come of
itself. A man works to raise it, and, after he has
worked in the sun and heat, do you think it is neces
sary that he should have a revelation from heaven
before he thinks that he has a better right to it than
the man who did not work ? And yet, according to
these gentlemen, we never would have known it was
wrong to steal had not the Ten Commandments been
given from Mount Sinai.

You go into a savage country where they never
heard of the Bible, and let a man hunt all day for
game, and finally get one little bird, and the hungry-
man that staid at home endeavor to take it from
him, and you would see whether he would need a

502 REPLY TO REV. DRS. THOMAS AND LORIMER.

direct revelation from God in order to make up
his mind who had the better right to that bird.
Our ideas of right and wrong are born of our
surroundings, and if a man will think for a moment
he will see it. But they deny that the mind thinks
in spite of us. I heard a story of a man who said,
" No man can think of one thing a minute, he will
think of something else." Well, there was a little
Methodist preacher. He said he could think of
a thing a minute — that he could say the Lord's
Prayer and never think of another thing. "Well,"
said the man, " I'll tell you what I will do. There is
the best road-horse in the country. I will give you
that horse if you will just say the Lord's Prayer, and
not think of another thing." And the little fellow
shut up his eyes : " Our Father which art in Heaven,
Hallowed be thy name. Thy Kingdom come, Thy
will be done — I suppose you will throw in the saddle
and bridle ?"

I have always insisted, and I shall always insist,
until I find some fact in Nature correcting the state
ment, that Nature sows the seeds of thought — that
every brain is a kind of field where the seeds are
sown, and that some are very poor, and some are
very barren, and some are very rich. That is my
opinion.

REPLY TO REV. DRS. THOMAS AND LORIMER. 503

Again he asks:" If one is not responsible for his
thought, why is any one blamed for thinking as he
does ? " It is not a question of blame, it is a ques
tion of who is right — a question of who is wrong.
Admit that every one thinks exactly as he must,
that does not show that his thought is right ; that
does not show that his thought is the highest
thought. Admit that every piece of land in the
world produces what it must ; that does not prove
that the land covered with barren rocks and a little
moss is just as good as the land covered with wheat
or corn ; neither does it prove that the mind has to
act as the wheat or the corn ; neither does it prove
that the land had any choice as to what it would
produce. I hold men responsible not for their
thoughts ; I hold men responsible for their actions.
And I have said a thousand times : Physical liberty
is this — the right to do anything that does not in
terfere with another — in other words, to act right ;
and intellectual liberty is this — the right to think
right, and the right to think wrong, provided you
do your best to think right. I have always said it,
and I expect to say it always.

The reverend gentleman is also afflicted with the
gradual theory. I believe in that theory.

If you will leave out inspiration, if you will leave

504 REPLY TO REV. DRS. THOMAS AND LORIMER.

out the direct interference of ah infinite God, the
gradual theory is right. It is a. theory of evolu
tion.

I admit that astronomy has been born of astrology,
that chemistry came from the black art ; and I also
contend that religion will be lost in science. I be
lieve in evolution. I believe in the budding of the
seed, the shining of the sun, the dropping of the
rain ; I believe in the spreading and the growing ;
and that is as true in every other department of the
world as it is in vegetation. I believe it ; but
that does not account for the Bible doctrine.
We are told we have a book absolutely inspired,
and it will not do to say God gradually grows.
If he is infinite now, he knows as much as he
ever will. If he has been always infinite, he
knew as much at the time he wrote the Bible
as he knows to-day ; and, consequently, what
ever he said then must be as true now as it was
then. You see they mix up now a little bit of
philosophy with religion — a little bit of science with
the shreds and patches of the supernatural.

Hear this : I said in my lecture the other day
that all the clergymen in the world could not get
one drop of rain out of the sky. I insist on it. All
the prayers on earth cannot produce one drop of

REPLY TO REV. DRS. THOMAS AND LORIMER. 505

rain. I also said all the clergymen of the world
could not save one human life. They tried it last
year. They tried it in the United States. The
Christian world upon its knees implored God to
save one life, and the man died. The man died !
Had the man recovered the whole church would
have claimed that it was in answer to prayer. The
man having died, what does the church say now ?
What is the answer to this ? The Rev. Dr. Thomas
says : " There is prayer and there is rain." Good.
" Can he that is himself or any one else say there is
no possible relation between one and the other ? "
I do. Let us put it another way. There is rain
and there is infidelity ; can any one say there is no
possible relation between the two ? How does Dr.
Thomas know that he is not indebted to me for this
year's crops ? And yet this gentleman really throws
out the idea that there is some possible relation
between prayer and rain, between rain. and health ;
and he tells us that he would have died twenty-five
years ago had it not been for prayer. I doubt it.
Prayer is not a medicine. Life depends upon cer
tain facts — not upon prayer. All the prayer in the
world cannot take the place of the circulation of the
blood. All the prayer in the world is no substitute
for digestion. All the prayer in the world cannot

506 REPLY TO REV. DRS. THOMAS AND LORIMER.

take the place of food ; and whenever a man lives
by prayer you will find that he eats considerable be
sides. It will not do. Again : This reverend Doc
tor says : " Shall we say that all the love of the
unseen world " — how does he know there is any
love in the unseen world ? " and the love of God "
— how does he know there is any love in God ?
" heed not the cries and tears of earth ? "

I do not know ; but let the gentleman read the
history of religious persecution. Let him read the
history of those who were put in dungeons, of those
who lifted their chained hands to God and mingled
prayer with the clank of fetters ; men that were in
the dungeons simply for loving this God, simply for
worshiping this God. And what did God do ?
Nothing. The chains remained upon the limbs of
his worshipers. They remained in the dungeons
built by theology, by malice, and hatred ; and what
did God do ? Nothing. Thousands of men were
taken from their homes, fagots were piled around
their bodies ; they were consumed to ashes, and what
did God do ? Nothing. The sword of extermina
tion was unsheathed, hundreds and thousands of men,
women and children perished. Women lifted their
hands to God and implored him to protect their
children, their daughters ; and what did God do ?

REPLY TO REV. DRS. THOMAS AND LORIMER. 507

Nothing. Whole races were enslaved, and the
cruel lash was put upon the naked back of toil.
What did God do ? Nothing. Children were sold
from the arms of mothers. All the sweet humanities
of life were trodden beneath the brutal foot of creed ;
and what did God do ? Nothing. Human beings,
his children, were tracked through swamps by
bloodhounds ; and what did God do ? Nothing.
Wild storms sweep over the earth and the ship
wrecked go down in the billows ; and what does
God do ? Nothing. There come plague and pesti
lence and famine. What does God do ? Thousands
and thousands perish. Little children die upon the
withered breasts of mothers ; and what does God
do ? Nothing.

What evidence has Dr. Thomas that the cries and
tears of man have ever touched the heart of God ?
Let us be honest. I appeal to the history of the
world ; I appeal to the tears, and blood, and agony,
and imprisonment, and death of hundreds and mill
ions of the bravest and best. Have they ever
touched the heart of the Infinite ? Has the hand of
help ever been reached from heaven ? I do not
know ; but I do not believe it.

Dr. Thomas tells me that is orthodox Christianity.
What right has he to tell what is orthodox Chris-

508 REPLY TO REV. DRS. THOMAS AND LORIMER.

tianity ? He is a heretic. He had too much brain to
remain in the Methodist pulpit. He had a doubt —
and a doubt is born of an idea. And his doctrine has
been declared by his own church to be unorthodox.
They have passed on his case and they have found
him unconstitutional. What right has he to state
what is orthodox ? And here is what he says :
"Christianity " — orthodox Christianity 1 suppose he
means — "teaches, concerning the future world, that
rewards and punishments are carried over from time
to eternity ; that the principles of the government of
God are the same there as here ; that character, and
not profession determines destiny ; and that Hum-
boldt, and Dickens, and all others who have gone
and shall go to that world shall receive their just
rewards ; that souls will always be in the place in
which for the time, be it now or a million years
hence, they are fitted. That is what Christianity
teaches."

If it does, never will I have another word to say
against Christianity. It never has taught it. Chris
tianity — orthodox Christianity — teaches that when
you draw your last breath you have lost the last
opportunity for reformation. Christianity teaches
that this little world is the eternal line between time
and eternity, and if you do not get religion in this

REPLY TO REV. DRS. THOMAS AND LORIMER. 509

life, you will be eternally damned in the next. That
is Christianity. They say : "Now is the accepted
time." If you put it off until you die, that is too
late ; and the doctrine of the Christian world is that
there is no opportunity for reformation in another
world. The doctrine of orthodox Christianity is
that you must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ here
in this life, and it will not do to believe on him in
the next world. You must believe on him here
and that if you fail here, God in his infinite wisdom
will never give you another chance. That is ortho
dox Christianity ; and according to orthodox Chris
tianity, the greatest, the best and the sublimest of
the world are now in hell. And why is it that they
say it is not orthodox Christianity ? I have made
them ashamed of their doctrine. When I called to
their attention the fact that such men as Darwin,
such men as Emerson, Dickens, Longfellow, La
place, Shakespeare, and Humboldt, were in hell, it
struck them all at once that the company in heaven
would not be very interesting with such men left
out.

And now they begin to say : " We think the Lord
will give those men another chance." I have
succeeded in my mission beyond my most sanguine
expectations. I have made orthodox ministers deny

5IO REPLY TO REV. DRS. THOMAS AND LORIMER.

their creeds ; I have made them ashamed of their
doctrine — and that is glory enough. They will let
me in, a few years after I am dead. I admit that
the doctrine that God will treat us as we treat
others — I admit that is taught by Matthew, Mark,
and Luke ; but it is not taught by the Orthodox
church. I want that understood. I admit also
that Dr. Thomas is not orthodox, and that he was
driven out of the church because he thought God
too good to damn men forever without giving them
the slightest chance. Why, the Catholic Church
is a thousand times better than your Protestant
Church upon that question. The Catholic Church
believes in purgatory — that is, a place where a
fellow can get a chance to make a motion for a new
trial.

Dr. Thomas, all I ask of you is to tell all that you
think. Tell your congregation whether you believe
the Bible was written by divine inspiration. Have
the courage and the grandeur to tell your people
whether, in your judgment, God ever upheld slavery.

Do not shrink. Do not shirk. Tell your people
whether God ever upheld polygamy. Do not
shrink. Tell them whether God was ever in favor
of religious persecution. Stand right to it. Then
tell your people whether you honestly believe that

REPLV TO REV. DRS. THOMAS AND LORIMER. 5ll

a good man can suffer for a bad one and the bad
one get the credit. Be honor bright. Tell what
you really think and there will not be as much
difference between you and myself as you imagine.

The next gentleman, I believe, is the Rev. Dr.
Lorimer. He comes to the rescue, and I have an
idea of his mental capacity from the fact that he is a
Baptist. He believes that the infinite God has a
choice as to the manner in which a man or babe
shall be dampened. This gentleman regards modern
infidelity as " pitifully shallow " as to its intellectual
conceptions and as to its philosophical views of the
universe and of the problems regarding man's place
in it and of his destiny. " Pitifully shallow ! "

What is the modern conception of the universe ?
The modern conception is that the universe always
has been and forever will be. The modern concep
tion of the universe is that it embraces within its
infinite arms all matter, all spirit, all forms of force,
all that is, all that has been, all that can be. That
is the modern conception of this universe. And
this is called " pitiful."

What is the Christian conception ? It is that all
the matter in the universe is dead, inert, and that
back of it is a Jewish Jehovah who made it, and
who is now engaged in managing the affairs of this

5 1 2 REPLY TO REV. DRS. THOMAS AND LORIMER.

world. And they even go so far as to say that that
Being made experiments in which he signally failed.
That Being made man and woman and put them in
a garden and allowed them to become totally de
praved. That Being of infinite wisdom made
hundreds and millions of people when he knew he
would have to drown them. That Being peopled a
planet like this with men, women and children,
knowing that he would have to consign most of them
to eternal fire. That is a pitiful conception of the
universe. That is an infamous conception of the
universe. Give me rather the conception of Spinoza,
the conception of Humboldt, of Darwin, of Huxley,
of Tyndall and of every other man who has thought.
I love to think of the whole universe together as
one eternal fact. 1 love to think that everything is
alive ; that crystallization is itself a step toward joy.
I love to think that when a bud bursts into blossom
it feels a thrill. I love to have the universe full of
feeling and full of joy, and not full of simple dead,
inert matter, managed by an old bachelor for all
eternity.

Another thing to which this gentleman objects is
that I propose to banish such awful thoughts as the
mystery of our origin and our relations to the pres
ent and to the possible future from human thought.

REPLY TO REV. DRS. THOMAS AND LORIMER. 513

I have never said so. Never. I have said, One
world at a time. Why ? Do not make yourself
miserable about another. Why ? Because I do
not know anything about it, and it may be good.
So do not worry. That is all. You do not know
where you are going to land. It may be the happy
port of heaven. Wait until you get there. It will
be time enough to make trouble then. This is what
I have said. I have said that the golden bridge
of life from gloom emerges, and on shadow rests. I
do not know. I admit it. Life is a shadowy
strange and winding road on which we travel for a
few short steps, just a little way from the cradle with
its lullaby of love, to the low and quiet wayside inn
where all at last must sleep, and where the only
salutation is "Good-Night!" Whether there is a
good morning I do not know, but I am willing to
wait.

Let us think these high and splendid thoughts.
Let us build palaces for the future, but do not let us
spend time making dungeons for men who happen
to differ from us. I am willing to take the concep
tions of Humboldt and Darwin, of Haeckel and
Spinoza, and I am willing to compare their splendid
conceptions with the doctrine embraced in the
Baptist creed. This gentleman has his ideas upon a

5 14 REPLY TO REV. DRS. THOMAS AND LORIMER.

variety of questions, and he tells me that, " No one
has a right to say that Dickens, Longfellow, and
Darwin are castaways." Why not ? They were
not Christians. They did not believe in the Lord
Jesus Christ. They did not believe in the inspira
tion of the Scriptures. And, if orthodox religion
be true, they are castaways. But he says : " No
one has the right to say that orthodoxy condemns
to perdition any man who has struggled toward the
right, and who has tried to bless the earth he is
raised on." That is what I say, but that is not what
orthodoxy says. Orthodoxy says that the best man
in the world, if he fails to believe in the existence of
God, or in the divinity of Christ, will be eternally
lost. Does it not say it? Is there an orthodox
minister in this town now who will stand up and
say that an honest atheist can be saved ? He will
not. Let any preacher say it, and he will be tried
for heresy.

I will tell you what orthodoxy is. A man goes
to the day of judgment, and they cross-examine
him, and they say to him :

" Did you believe the Bible ? "

" No."

" Did you belong to the church ? "

" No."

REPLY TO REV. DRS. THOMAS AND LORIMER. 5 I 5

" Did you take care of your wife and children ? "

" Yes ? "

1 ' Pay your debts ? "

" Yes."

" Love your country ? "

" Yes."

" Love the whole world ? "

" Yes."

" Never made anybody unhappy ? "

" Not that I know of. If there is any man or
woman that I ever wronged let them stand up and
say so. That is the kind of man I am ; but," said
he, " I did not believe the Bible. I did not believe
in the divinity of Jesus Christ, and, to tell you the
truth, I did not believe in the existence of God. I
now find I was mistaken ; but that was my doctrine."

Now, I want to know what, according to the
orthodox church, is done with that man ? He is
sent to hell.

That is their doctrine.

Then the next fellow comes. He says :

" Where did you come from ? "

And he looks off kind of stiffly, with his head on
one side and he says :

" I came from the gallows. I was just hung."

" What were you hung for? "

5l6 REPLY TO REV. DRS. THOMAS AND LORIMER.

" Murdering my wife. She wasn't a Christian
either, she got left. The day I was hung I was
washed in the blood of the Lamb."

That is Christianity. And they say to him :

"Come in ! Let the band play ! "

That is orthodox Christianity. Every man that is
hanged — there is a minister there, and the minister
tells him he is all right. All he has to do is just to
believe on the Lord.

Another objection this gentleman has, and that
is that I am scurrilous. Scurrilous ! And the gen
tleman, in order to show that he is not scurrilous,
calls infidels, " donkeys, serpents, buzzards." That
is simply to show that he is not scurrilous.

Dr. Lorimer is also of the opinion that the mind
thinks independently of the will ; and I propose to
prove by him that it does. He is the last man in
the world to controvert that doctrine — the last man.
In spite of himself his mind absorbed the sermon of
another man, and he repeated it as his own. I am
satisfied he is an honest man ; consequently his
mind acted independently of his will, and he fur
nishes the strongest evidence in favor of my position
that it is possible to conceive. I am infinitely
obliged to him for the testimony he has uncon
sciously offered.

REPLY TO REV. DRS. THOMAS AND LORIMER.

He also takes the ground that infidelity debases
a man and renders him unfit for the discharge of
the highest duties pertaining to life, and that we
show the greatest shallowness when we endeavor
to overthrow Calvinism. What is Calvinism ? It
is the doctrine that an infinite God made millions of
people, knowing that they would be damned. I
have answered that a thousand times. I answer it
again. No God has a right to make a mistake, and
then damn the mistake. No God has a right to
make a failure, and a man who is to be eternally
damned is not a conspicuous success. No God has
a right to make an investment that will not finally
pay a dividend.

The world is getting better, and the ministers, all
your life and all mine, have been crying out from
the pulpit that we are all going wrong, that im
morality was stalking through the land, that crime
was about to engulf the world, and yet, in spite of
all their prophecies, the world has steadily grown
better, and there is more justice, more charity, more
kindness, more goodness, and more liberty in the
world to-day than ever before. And there is more
infidelity in the world to-day than ever before.

REPLY TO
REV. J. HALL AND W. VAN NORDEN

A REPLY TO
REV. JOHN HALL AND WARNER VAN NORDEN.

Question. Have you read the article in the Morn
ing Advertiser entitled "Workers Starving " ?

Answer. I have read it, and was greatly surprised
at the answers made to the reporter of the Ad
vertiser.

Question. What do you think of the remarks of
the Rev. John Hall and by Mr. Warner Van Norden,
Treasurer of the "Church Extension Committee " ?

Answer. My opinion is that Dr. Hall must have
answered under some irritation, or that the reporter
did not happen to take down all he said. It hardly
seems probable that Dr. Hall should have said that

* The attention of Morning' Advertiser readers was, in the issue of February 27th,
called to two sets of facts transpiring contemporaneously in this city. One was the
starving condition of four hundred cloakmakers who had struck because they
could not live on reduced wages. Arbitration had failed; two hundred of the
number, seeing starvation staring them in the face, were forced to give up the
fight, and the remaining number continued to do battle for higher wages.

While these cloakmakers were in the extremity of destitution, millionaires were
engaged in subscribing to a fund " for the extension of the church." The exten
sion committee, received at the home of Jay Gould, had met with such signal
success as to cause comment throughout the city. The host subscribed ten thousand
dollars, his daughter twenty-five hundred and the assembled guests sums ranging
between five hundred and one thousand. The Morning Advertiser made inquiry as
to whether any of the money contributed for the extension of the church would
find its way into the pockets of the hungry cloakmakers.

Dr. John Hall said he did not have time to discuss the matter of aiding the needy
poor, as there were so many other things that demanded his immediate attention.

Mr. Warner Van Norden, Treasurer of the Church Extension Committee, was
seen at his office in the North American Bank, of which institution he is President.

(581)

522 REPLY TO REV. J. HALL AND W. VAN NORDEN.

he had no time to discuss the matter of aiding the
needy poor, giving as a reason that there were so
many other things that demanded his immediate
attention. " The church is always insisting that it
is, above all things, a charitable institution ; that it
collects and distributes many millions every year for
the relief of the needy, and it is always quoting :
" Sell that thou hast and give to the poor." It
is hard to imagine anything of more importance
than to relieve the needy, or to succor the oppress
ed. Of course, I know that the church itself pro
duces nothing, and that it lives on contributions ;
but its claim is that it receives from those who are
able to give, and gives to those who are in urgent
need.

I have sometimes thought, that the most uncharit-

He took the view that the cloakmakers had brought their trouble upon themselves,
and it was not the duty of the charitable to extend to them direct aid.

Generally speaking, he was not in favor of helping the poor and needy of the
city, save in the way employed by the church.

" The experience of centuries, said he, "teaches us that the giving of alms to
the poor only encourages them in their idleness and their crimes. The duty of the
church is to save men's souls, and to minister to their bodies incidentally.

" It is best to teach people to rely upon their own resources. If the poor felt that
they could get material help, they would want it always. In these days if a man or
woman can't get along it's their own fault. There is my typewriter. She was
brought up in a tenement house. Now she gets two dollars a day, and dresses
better than did the lords and ladies of other times. You'll find that where people
are poor, it's their own fault.

" After all, happiness does not lie in the enjoyment of material things — it is the soul
that makes life worth living. You should come to our Working Girls' Club and see
this fact illustrated. There you will see girls who have been working all day,
singing hymns and following the leader in prayer."

' ' Don't you think there are many worthy poor in this city who need material
help ? " was asked.

"No, sir ; I do not," said Mr. Van Norden. " If a man or woman wants money,
they should work for it."

" But is employment always to be had ? "

" I think it is by Americans. You' 11 find that most of the people out of work
are those who are not adapted to the conditions of this country.

Colonel Robert Ingersoll was asked what he thought of such philosophy.— New
York Morning Advertiser ', March 6, 1892.

REPLY TO REV. J. HALL AND W. VAN NORDEN. 523

able thing in the world is an organized charity. It
seems to have the peculiarities of a corporation,
and becomes as soulless as its kindred. To use a
very old phrase, it generally acts like " a beggar on
horseback."

Probably Dr. Hall, in fact, does a great deal for
the poor, and I imagine that he must have been
irritated or annoyed when he made the answer at
tributed to him in the Advertiser. The good Sa
maritan may have been in a hurry, but he said noth
ing about it. The Levites that passed by on the
other side seemed to have had other business.
Understand me, I am saying nothing against Dr.
Hall, but it does seem to me that there are few
other matters more important than assisting our
needy fellow-men.

Question. What do you think of Mr. Warner
Van Norden's sentiments as expressed to the re
porter ?

Answer. In the first place, I think he is entirely
mistaken. I do not think the cloakmakers brought
their trouble upon themselves. The wages they
receive were and are insufficient to support reason
able human beings. They work for almost noth
ing, and it is hard for me to understand why they
live at all, when life is so expensive and death so

524 REPLY TO REV. J. HALL AND W. VAN NORDEN.

cheap. All they can possibly do is to earn enough
one day to buy food to enable them to work the
next. Life with them is a perpetual struggle. They
live on the edge of death. Under their feet they
must feel the side of the grave crumbling, and thus
they go through, day by day, month by month, year
by year. They are, I presume, sustained by a hope
that is never realized.

Mr. Van Norden says that he is not in favor of
helping the poor and needy of the city, save in the
way employed by the church, and that the experi
ence of centuries teaches us that the giving of alms
to the poor only encourages them in their idleness
and their crimes.

Is Mr. Van Norden ready to take the ground
that when Christ said : " Sell that thou hast and
give to the poor," he intertded to encourage idleness
and crime ?

Is it possible that when it was said, " It is better
to give than to receive," the real meaning was, It
is better to encourage idleness and crime than to
receive assistance ?

For instance, a man falls into the water. Why
should one standing on the shore attempt to rescue
him ? Could he not properly say : " If all who
fall into the water are rescued, it will only encour-

REPLY TO REV. J. HALL AND W. VAN NORDEN. 525

age people to fall into the water ; it will make
sailors careless, and persons who stand on wharves,
will care very little whether they fall in or not.
Therefore, in order to make people careful who
have not fallen into the water, let those in the water
drown." In other words, why should anybody be
assisted, if assistance encourages carelessness, or
idleness, or negligence ?

According to Mr. Van Norden, charity is out of
place in this world, kindness is a mistake, and hos
pitality springs from a lack of philosophy. In other
words, all should take the consequences of their
acts, not only, but the consequences of the acts of
others.

If I knew this doctrine to be true, I should still
insist that men should be charitable on their own
account. A man without pity, no matter how intel
ligent he may be, is at best only an intellectual beast,
and if by withholding all assistance we could finally
people the world with those who are actually self-
supporting, we would have a population without
sympathy, without charity — that is to say, without
goodness. In my judgment, it would be far better
that none should exist.

Mr. Van Norden takes the ground that the duty
of the church is to save men's souls, and to minister

526 REPLY TO REV. J. HALL AND W. VAN NORDEN.

to their bodies incidentally. I think that conditions
have a vast deal to do with morality and goodness.
If you wish to change the conduct of your fellow-
men, the first thing to do is to change their condi
tions, their surroundings ; in other words, to help
them to help themselves — help them to get away
from bad influences, away from the darkness of ig
norance, away from the temptations of poverty and
want, not only into the light intellectually, but into
the climate of prosperity. It is useless to give a
hungry man a religious tract, and it is almost use
less to preach morality to those who are so situated
that the necessity of the present, the hunger of the
moment, overrides every other consideration. There
is a vast deal of sophistry in hunger, and a good deal
of persuasion in necessity.

Prosperity is apt to make men selfish. They
imagine that because they have succeeded, others
and all others, might or may succeed. If any man
will go over his own life honestly, he will find that he
has not always succeeded because he was good, or
that he has always failed because he was bad. He
will find that many things happened with which he
had nothing to do, for his benefit, and that, after all
is said and done, he cannot account for all of his
successes by his absolute goodness. So, if a man

REPLY TO REV. J. HALL AND W. VAN NORDEN. 52 7

will think of all the bad things he has done — of all
the bad things he wanted to do — of all the bad
things he would have done had he had the chance,
and had he known that detection was impossible, he
will find but little foundation for egotism.

Question. What do you say to this language of
Mr. Van Norden. " It is best to teach people to rely
upon their own resources. If the poor felt that they
could get material help they would want it always,
and in this day, if a man and woman cannot get
along, it is their own fault " ?

Ansiver. All I can say is that I do not agree with
him. Often there are many more men in a certain
trade than there is work for such men. Often great
factories shut down, leaving many thousands out of
employment. You may say that it was the fault of
these men that they learned that trade ; that they
might have known it would be overcrowded ; so you
may say it was the fault of the capitalist to start a
factory in that particular line, because he should have
known that it was to be overdone.

As no man can look very far into the future, the
truth is it was nobody's fault, and without fault thou
sands and thousands are thrown out of employment.
Competition is so sharp, wages are so small, that to be
out of employment for a few weeks means want. You

528 REPLY TO REV. J. HALL AND W. VA"N NORDEN.

cannot say that this is the fault of the man who wants
bread. He certainly did not wish to go hungry ;
neither did he deliberately plan a failure. He did
the best he could. There are plenty of bankers who
fail in business, not because they wish to fail; so
there are plenty of professional men who cannot
make a living, yet it may not be their fault ; and
there are others who get rich, and it may not be by
reason of their virtues.

Without doubt, there are many people in the
city of New York who cannot make a living. Com
petition is too sharp ; life is too complex ; conse
quently the percentage of failures is large. In sav
age life there are few failures, but in civilized life
there are many. There are many thousands out of
work and out of food in Berlin to-day. It can
hardly be said to be their fault. So there are many
thousands in London, and every other great city of
the world. You cannot account for all this want by
saying that the people who want are entirely to
blame.

A man gets rich, and he is often egotistic enough
to think that his wealth was the result of his
own unaided efforts ; and he is sometimes heartless
enough to say that others should get rich by follow
ing his example.

REPLY TO REV. J. HALL AND W. VAN NORDEN. 529

Mr. Van Norden states that he has a typewriter
who gets two dollars a day, and that she dresses
better than the lords and ladies did of olden times.
He must refer to the times of the Garden of Eden.
Out of two dollars a day one must live, and there is
very little left for gorgeous robes. I hardly think a
lady is to be envied because she receives two dol
lars a day, and the probability is that the manner in
which she dresses on that sum — having first deducted
the expenses of living — is not calculated to excite
envy.

The philosophy of Mr. Van Norden seems to
be concentrated into this line : " Where people are
poor it is their own fault." Of course this is the
death of all charity.

We are then informed by this gentleman that
" happiness does not lie in the enjoyment of mate
rial things — that it is the soul that makes life worth
living."

Is it the soul without pity that makes life worth
living? Is it the soul in which the blossom of
charity has never shed its perfume that makes life
so desirable ? Is it the soul, having all material
things, wrapped in the robes of prosperity, and that
says to all the poor : It is your own fault ; die of
hunger if you must — that makes life worth living ?

530 REPLY TO REV. J. HALL AND W. VAN NORDEN.

It may be asked whether it is worth while for such
a soul to live.

If this is the philosophy of Mr. Van Norden, I
do not wish to visit his working girls' club, or
to " hear girls who have been working all day
singing hymns and following the leader in prayer."
Why should a soul without pity pray ? Why
should any one ask God to be merciful to the
poor if he is not merciful himself? For my own
part, I would rather see poor people eat than to
hear them pray. I would rather see them clothed
comfortably than to see them shivering, and at the
same time hear them sing hymns.

It does not seem possible that any man can say
that there are no worthy poor in this city who need
material help. Neither does it seem possible that
any man can say to one who is starving that if he
wants money he must work for it. There are
hundreds and thousands in this city willing to work
who can find no employment. There are good and
pure women standing between their children and
starvation, living in rooms worse than cells in peni
tentiaries — giving their own lives to their children —
hundreds and hundreds of martyrs bearing the cross
of every suffering, worthy of the reverence and love
of mankind. So there are men wandering about

REPLY TO REV. J. HALL AND W. VAN NORDEN. 53 I

these streets in search of work, willing to do any
thing to feed the ones they love.

Mr. Van Norden has not done himself justice. I
do not believe that he expresses his real sentiments.
But, after all, why should we expect charity in a
church that believes in the dogma of eternal pain ?
Why cannot the rich be happy here in their palaces,
while the poor suffer and starve in huts, when these
same rich expect to enjoy heaven forever, with all
the unbelievers in hell ? Why should the agony of
time interfere with their happiness, when the ago
nies of eternity will not and cannot affect their joy ?
But I have nothing against Dr. John Hall or Mr.
Van Norden — only against their ideas.

REPLY TO THE REV. DR. PLUMB.

A REPLY TO THE REV. DR. PLUMB.*

Question. Last Sunday the Rev. Dr. Plumb paid
some attention to the lecture which you delivered
here on the 23rd of October. Have you read a
report of it, and what have you to say ?

Answer. Dr. Plumb attacks not only myself, but
the Rev. Mr. Mills. I do not know the position that
Mr. Mills takes, but from what Dr. Plumb says, I
suppose that he has mingled a little philosophy with
his religion and some science with his superstition.
Dr. Plumb appears to have successfully avoided both.
His manners do not appear to me to be of the best.
Why should he call an opponent coarse and blas
phemous, simply because he does not happen to
believe as he does ? Is it blasphemous to say that
this " poor" world never was visited by a Redeemer
from Heaven, a majestic being — unique — peculiar —
who ' ' trod the sea and hushed the storm and raised
the dead " ? Why does Dr. Plumb call this world a

•Boston, 1898. (535)

53$ A REPLY TO THE REV. DR. PLUMB.

" poor " world ? According to his creed, it was
created by infinite wisdom, infinite goodness and
infinite power. How dare he call the work of such
a being "poor"?

Is it not blasphemous for a Boston minister to
denounce the work of the Infinite and say to God
that he made a " poor " world ? If I believed this
world had been made by an infinitely wise and good
Being, I should certainly insist that this is not a poor
world, but, on the contrary, a perfect world. I
would insist that everything that happens is for the
best. Whether it looks wise or foolish to us, I
would insist that the fault we thought we saw, lies in
us and not in the infinitely wise and benevolent
Creator.

Dr. Plumb may love God, but he certainly re
gards him as a poor mechanic and a failure as a
manufacturer. There Dr. Plumb, like all religious
preachers, takes several things for granted ; things
that have not been established by evidence, and
things which in their nature cannot be estab
lished.

He tells us that this poor world was visited by a
mighty Redeemer from Heaven. How does he
know ? Does he know where heaven is ? Does
he know that any such place exists ? Is he perfectly

A REPLY TO THE REV. DR. PLUMB. 537

sure that an infinite God would be foolish enough to
make people who needed a redeemer ?

He also says that this Being " trod the sea, hushed
the storm and raised the dead." Is there any evi
dence that this Being trod the sea? Any more
evidence than that Venus rose from the foam of the
ocean ? Any evidence that he hushed the storm
any more than there is that the storm comes from
the cave of ^Eolus ? Is there any evidence that he
raised the dead ? How would it be possible to
prove that the dead were raised ? How could we
prove such a thing if it happened now ? Who
would believe the evidence ? As a matter of factr
the witnesses themselves would not believe and
could not believe until raising of the dead became so
general as to be regarded as natural.

Dr. Plumb knows, if he knows anything, that
gospel gossip is the only evidence he has, or anybody
has, that Christ trod the sea, hushed the storm and
raised the dead. He also knows, if he knows any
thing, that these stories were not written until Christ
himself had been dead for at least four generations.
He knows also that these accounts were written at
a time when the belief in miracles was almost uni
versal, and when everything that actually happened
was regarded of no particular importance, and only

A REPLY TO THE REV. DR. PLUMB.

the things that did not happen were carefully written
out with all the details.

So Dr. Plumb says that this man who hushed the
storm " spake as never man spake." Did the
Doctor ever read Zeno ? Zeno, who denounced
human slavery many years before Christ was born ?
Did he ever read Epicurus, one of the greatest of
the Greeks? Has he read anything from Buddha?
Has he read the dialogues between Arjuna and
Krishna ? If he has, he knows that every great
and splendid utterance of Christ was uttered cen
turies before he lived. Did he ever read Lao-tsze ? If
he did — and this man lived many centuries before the
coming of our Lord — he knows that Lao-tsze said
" we should render benefits for injuries. We should
love our enemies, and we should not resist evil."
So it will hardly do now to say that Christ spake as
never man spake, because he repeated the very
things that other men had said.

So he says that I am endeavoring to carry people
back to a dimly groping Socrates or a vague Con
fucius. Did Dr. Plumb ever read Confucius ? Only
a little while ago a book was published by Mr. For-
long showing the origin of the principal religion and
the creeds that have been taught. In this book you
will find the cream of Buddha, of Christ, of Zoroaster,

A REPLY TO THE REV. DR. PLUMB. 539

and you will also find a few pages devoted to the
philosophy of Confucius ; and after you have read the
others, then read what Confucius says, and you will
find that his philosophy rises like a monolith touch
ing the clouds, while the creeds and sayings of the
others appear like heaps of stone or piles of rubbish.
The reason of this is that Confucius was not simply
a sentimentalist. He was not controlled entirely by
feeling, but he had intelligence — a great brain in
which burned the torch of reason. Read Confucius,
and you will think that he must have known the
sciences of to-day ; that is to say, the conclusions
that have been reached by modern thinkers. It
could have been easily said of Confucius in his day
that he spake as never man had spoken, and it may
be that after you read him you will change your
mind just a little as to the wisdom and the intelli
gence contained in many of the sayings of our Lord.
Dr. Plumb charges that Mr. Mills is trying to re
construct theology. Whether he is right in this
charge I do not know, but I do know that I am not
trying to reconstruct theology. I am endeavoring
to destroy it. I have no more confidence in theol
ogy than I have in astrology or in the black art.
Theology is a science that exists wholly independent
of facts, and that reaches conclusions, without the

54O A REPLY TO THE REV. DR. FLUME.

assistance of evidence. It also scorns experience
and does what little it can to do away with
thought.

I make a very great distinction between theology
and real religion. I can conceive of no religion ex
cept usefulness. Now, here we are, men and women
in this world, and we have certain faculties, certain
senses. There are things that we can ascertain,
and by developing our brain we can avoid mistakes,
keep a few thorns out of our feet, a few thistles out
of our hands, a few diseases from our flesh. In my
judgment, we should use all our senses, gathering
information from every possible quarter, and this in
formation should be only used for the purpose of
ascertaining the facts, for finding out the conditions
of well-being, to the end that we may add to the
happiness of ourselves and fellows.

In other words, I believe in intellectual veracity
and also in mental hospitality. To me reason is the
final arbiter, and when I say reason, I mean my rea
son. It may be a very poor light, the flame small
and flickering, but, after all, it is the only light I
have, and never with my consent shall any preacher
blow it out.

Now, Dr. Plumb thinks that I am trying to despoil
my fellow-men of their greatest inheritance ; that is

A REPLY TO THE REV. DR. PLUMB. 541

to say, divine Christ. Why do you call Christ good ?
Is it because he was merciful ? Then why do you
put him above mercy ? Why do you call Christ
good ? Is it because he was just ? Why do you
put him before justice ? Suppose it should turn out
that no such person as Christ ever lived. What
harm would that do justice or mercy ? Wouldn't
the tear of pity be as pure as now, and wouldn't
justice, holding aloft her scales, from which she
blows even the dust of prejudice, be as noble, as
admirable as now ? Is it not better to love, justice
and mercy than to love a name, and when you put
a name above justice, above mercy, are you sure
that you are benefiting your fellow-men ?

If Dr. Plumb wanted to answer me, why did he
not take my argument instead of my motive ?
Why did he not point out my weakness instead of
telling the consequences that would follow from my
action ? We have nothing to do with the conse
quences. I said that to believe without evidence,
or in spite of evidence, was superstition. If that
definition is correct, Dr. Plumb is a superstitious
man, because he believes at least without evidence.
What evidence has he that Christ was God ? In
the nature of things, how could he have evidence ?
The only evidence he pretends to have is the dream

542 A REPLY TO THE REV. DR. PLUMB.

of Joseph, and he does not know that Joseph
ever dreamed the dream, because Joseph did not
write an account of his dream, so that Dr. Plumb
has only hearsay for the dream, and the dream is
the foundation of his creed.

Now, when I say that that is superstition, Dr.
Plumb charges me with being a burglar — a coarse,
blasphemous burglar — who wishes to rob somebody
of some great blessing. Dr. Plumb would not hesi
tate to tell a Mohammedan that Mohammed was an
impostor. He would tell a Mormon in Utah that
Joseph Smith was a vulgar liar and that Brigham
Young was no better. In other words, if in Turkey,
he would be a coarse and blasphemous burglar, and
he would follow the same profession in Utah. So
probably he would tell the Chinese that Confucius
was an ignorant wretch and that their religion was
idiotic, and the Chinese priest would denounce Dr.
Plumb as a very coarse and blasphemous burglar,
and Dr. Plumb would be perfectly astonished
that a priest could be so low, so impudent and
malicious.

Of course my wonder is not excited. I have
become used to it.

If Dr. Plumb would think, if he would exercise
his imagination a little and put himself in the place

A REPLY TO THE REV. DR. PLUMB. 543

of others, he would think, in all probability, better
things of his opponents. I do not know Dr. Plumb,
and yet I have no doubt that he is a good and
sincere man ; a little superstitious, superficial, and
possibly, mingled with his many virtues, there may
be a little righteous malice.

The Rev. Mr. Mills used to believe as Dr. Plumb
does now, and I suppose he has changed for reasons
that were sufficient for him. So I believe him to be
an honest, conscientious man, and so far as I am con
cerned, I have no objection to Mr. Mills doing what
little he can to get all the churches to act together.
He may never succeed, but I am not responsible for
that.

So I have no objection to Dr. Plumb preaching
what he believes to be the gospel. I admit that he
is honest when he says that an infinitely good God
made a poor world ; that he made man and woman
and put them in the Garden of Eden, and that this
same God before that time had manufactured a devil,
and that when he manufactured this devil, he knew
that he would corrupt the man and woman that he
had determined to make ; that he could have
defeated the devil, but that for a wise purpose, he
allowed his Satanic Majesty to succeed ; that at the
time he allowed him to succeed, he knew that in

544 A REPLY TO THE REV. DR. PLUMB.

consequence of his success that he (God) in about
fifteen or sixteen hundred years would be compelled
to drown the whole world with the exception of eight
people. These eight people he kept for seed. At
the time he kept them for seed, he knew that they
were totally depraved, that they were saturated with
the sin of Adam and Eve, and that their children
would be their natural heirs. He also knew at
the time he allowed the devil to succeed, that he
(God), some four thousand years afterward, would be
compelled to be born in Palestine as a babe, to learn
the carpenter's trade, and to go about the country for
three years preaching to the people and discussing
with the rabbis of his chosen people, and he also
knew that these chosen people — these people who
had been governed and educated by him, to whom
he had sent a multitude of prophets, would at that
time be so savage that they would crucify him, al
though he would be at that time the only sinless
being who had ever stood upon the earth. This he
knew would be the effect of his government, of his
education of his chosen people. He also knew at
the time he allowed the devil to succeed, that in
consequence of that success a vast majority of the
human race would become eternal convicts in the
prison of hell.

A REPLY TO THE REV. DR. PLUMB. 545

All this he knew, and yet Dr. Plumb insists that
he was and is infinitely wise, infinitely powerful
and infinitely good. What would this God have
done if he had lacked wisdom, or power, or
goodness ?

Of all the religions that man has produced, of all
the creeds of savagery, there is none more perfectly
absurd than Christianity.

REPLY TO THE
N. Y. CLERGY ON SUPERSTITION.

A REPLY TO
THE NEW YORK CLERGY ON SUPERSTITION.*

Question. Have you followed the controversy,
or rather, the interest manifested in the letters to
the Journal which have followed your lecture of
Sunday, and what do you think of them ?

Answer. I have read the letters and reports that
have been published in the Journal. Some of them
seem to be very sincere, some not quite honest, and
some a little of both.

The Rev. Robert S. MacArthur takes the ground
that very many Christians do not believe in a per
sonal devil, but are still Christians. He states that
they hold that the references in the New Testament
to the devil are simply to personifications of evil,
and do not apply to any personal existence. He
says that he could give the names of a number of
pastors who hold such views. He does not state
what his view is. Consequently, I do not know
whether he is a believer in a personal devil or not.

New York Journal, 1898. An Interview. (649)

55O REPLY TO THE N. Y. CLERGY ON SUPERSTITION.

The statement that the references in the New
Testament to a devil are simply to personifications
of evil, not applying to any personal existence,
seems to me utterly absurd.

The references to devils in the New Testament
are certainly as good and satisfactory as the refer
ences to angels. Now, are the angels referred to in
the New Testament simply personifications of good,
and are there no such personal existences ? If
devils are only personifications of evil, how is it that
these personifications of evil could hold arguments
with Jesus Christ ? How could they talk back ?
How could they publicly acknowledge the divinity
of Christ ? As a matter of fact, the best evidences
of Christ's divinity in the New Testament are the
declarations of devils. These devils were supposed
to be acquainted with supernatural things, and con
sequently knew a God when they saw one, whereas
the average Jew, not having been a citizen of the
celestial world, was unable to recognize a deity
when he met him.

Now, these personifications of evil, as Dr. Mac-
Arthur calls them, were of various kinds. Some
of them were dumb, while others could talk, and
Christ said, speaking of the dumb devils, that they
were very difficult to expel from the bodies of men ;

REPLY TO THE N. Y. CLERGY ON SUPERSTITION. 551

that it required fasting and prayer to get them out.
Now, did Christ mean that these dumb devils did
not exist ? That they were only " personifications
of evil " ?

Now, we are also told in the New Testament that
Christ was tempted by the devil ; that is, by a
" personification of evil," and that this personifica
tion took him to the pinnacle of the temple and
tried to induce him to jump off. Now, where did
this personification of evil come from ? Was it an
actual existence ? Dr. MacArthur says that it may
not have been. Then it did not come from the out
side of Christ. If it existed it came from the inside
of Christ, so that, according to MacArthur, Christ
was the creator of his own devil.

I do not know that I have a right to say that this
is Dr. MacArthur's opinion, as he has wisely re
frained from giving his opinion. I hope some time
he will tell us whether he really believes in a devil
or not, or whether he thinks all allusions and refer
ences to devils in the New Testament can be ex
plained away by calling the devils "personifications
of evil." Then, of course, he will tell us whether it
was a " personification of evil " that offered Christ
all the kingdoms of the world, and whether Christ
expelled seven " personifications of evil " from Mary

552 REPLY TO THE N. Y. CLERGY ON SlTPERSTITION.

Magdalene, and how did they come to count these
" personifications of evil " ? If the devils, after all,
are only " personifications of evil," then, of course,
they cannot be numbered. They are all one.
There may be different manifestations, but, in fact,
there can be but one, and yet Mary Magdalene had
seven.

Dr. MacArthur states that I put up a man of
straw, and then vigorously beat him down. Now,
the question is, do I attack a man of straw ? I take
it for granted that Christians to some extent, at least,
believe in their creeds. I suppose they regard the
Bible as the inspired word of God ; that they be
lieve in the fall of man, in the atonement, in salva
tion by faith, in the resurrection and ascension of
Christ. I take it for granted that they believe these
things. Of course, the only evidence I have is
what they say. Possibly that cannot be depended
upon. They may be dealing only in the " personi
fication of truth."

When I charge the orthodox Christians with be
lieving these things, I am told that I am far behind
the religious thinking of the hour, but after all, this
" man of straw " is quite powerful. Prof. Briggs
attacked this " man of straw," and the straw man
turned on him and put him out. A preacher by

REPLY TO THE N. Y. CLERGY ON SUPERSTITION. 553

the name of Smith, a teacher in some seminary out
in Ohio, challenged this " man of straw," and the
straw man put him out.

Both these reverend gentlemen were defeated
by the straw man, and if the Rev. Dr. MacArthur
will explain to his congregation, I mean only ex
plain what he calls the " religious thinking of the
hour," the " straw man " will put him out too.

Dr. MacArthur finds fault with me because I put
into the minds of representative thinkers of to-day
the opinions of medieval monks, which leading re
ligious teachers long ago discarded. Will Dr. Mac-
Arthur have the goodness to point out one opinion
that I have put into the minds of representative
thinkers — that is, of orthodox thinkers — that any
orthodox religious teacher of to-day has discarded ?
Will he have the kindness to give just one ?

In my lecture on "Superstition " I did say that
to deny the existence of evil spirits, or to deny the
existence of the devil, is to deny the truth of the
New Testament ; and that to deny the existence of
these imps of darkness is to contradict the words of
Jesus Christ. I did say that if we give up the be
lief in devils we must give up the inspiration of
the Old and New Testaments, and we must give up
the divinity of Christ. Upon that declaration I

554 REPLY TO THE N. Y. CLERGY ON SUPERSTITION.

stand, because if devils do not exist, then Jesus Christ
was mistaken, or we have not in the New Testament
a true account of what he said and of what he pre
tended to do. If the New Testament gives a true
account of his words and pretended actions, then he
did claim to cast out devils. That was his principal
business. That was his certificate of divinity, casting
out devils. That authenticated his mission and
proved that he was superior to the hosts of darkness.

Now, take the devil out of the New Testament,
and you also take the veracity of Christ ; with that
veracity you take the divinity ; with that divinity
you take the atonement, and when you take the
atonement, the great fabric known as Christianity
becomes a shapeless ruin.

Now, let Dr. MacArthur answer this, and answer
it not like a minister, but like a man. Ministers are
unconsciously a little unfair. They have a little
tendency to what might be called a natural crook.
They become spiritual when they ought to be can
did. They become a little ingenious and pious when
they ought to be frank ; and when really driven into
a corner, they clasp their hands, they look upward,
and they cry "Blasphemy / " I do not mean by this
that they are dishonest. I simply mean that they
are illogical.

REPLY TO THE N. Y. CLERGY ON SUPERSTITION. 555

Dr. MacArthur tells us also that Spain is not a
representative of progressive religious teachers. I
admit that. There are no progressive religious
teachers in Spain, and right here let me make a re
mark. If religion rests on an inspired revelation, it
is incapable of progress. It may be said that year
after year we get to understand it better, but if it is
not understood when -given, why is it called a " reve
lation " ? There is no progress in the multiplication
table. Some men are better mathematicians than
others, but the old multiplication table remains the
same. So there can be no progress in a revelation
from God.

Now, Spain — and that is the great mistake, the
great misfortune — has remained orthodox. That is
to say, the Spaniards have been true to their super
stition. Of course the Rev. Dr. MacArthur will
not admit that Catholicism is Christianity, and I sup
pose that the pope would hardly admit that a Bap
tist is a very successful Christian. The trouble with
Spain is, and the trouble with the Baptist Church is,
that neither of them has progressed to any great
extent.

Now, in my judgment, what is called religion must
grow better as man grows better, simply because it
was produced by man. and the better man is, the

REPLY TO THE N. Y. CLERGY ON SUPERSTITION.

nearer civilized he is, the better, the nearer civilized,
will be what he calls his religion ; and if the Baptist
religion has progressed, it is a demonstration that
it was not originally founded on a revelation from
God.

In my lecture I stated that we had no right to
make any distinction between the actions of infinite
wisdom and goodness, and that if God created and
governs this world we ought to thank him, if we
thanked him at all, for all that happens ; that we
should thank him just as heartily for famine and cy
clone as for sunshine and harvest, and that if Presi
dent McKinley thanked God for the victory at
Santiago, he also should have thanked him for send
ing the yellow fever.

I stand by these words. A finite being has no
right to make any distinction between the actions of
the infinitely good and wise. If God governs this
world, then everything that happens is the very best
that could happen. When A murders B, the best
thing that could happen to A is to be a murderer and
the best thing that could have happened to B was to
be murdered. There is no escape from this if the
world is governed by infinite wisdom and goodness.

It will not do to try and dodge by saying that man
is free. This God who made man and made him free

REPLY TO THE N. Y. CLERGY ON SUPERSTITION. 557

knew exactly how he would use his freedom, and
consequently ihis God cannot escape the responsi
bility for the actions of men. He made them. He
knew exactly what they would do. He is respon
sible.

If I could turn a piece of wood into a human
being, and I knew that he would murder a man,
who is the real murderer ? But if Dr. MacArthur
would think as much as he preaches, he would
come much nearer agreeing with me.

The Rev. Dr. J. Lewis Parks is very sorry that
he cannot discuss Ingersoll's address, because to do
so would be dignifying Ingersoll. Of course I
deeply regret the refusal of Dr. J. Lewis Parks to
discuss the address. I dislike to be compelled to
go to the end of my life without being dignified.
At the same time I will forgive the Rev. Dr. J.
Lewis Parks for not answering me, because I know
that he cannot.

The Rev. Dr. Moldehnke, whose name seems
chiefly made of consonants, denounces me as a scof
fer and as illogical, and says that Christianity is not
founded upon the devil, but upon Christ. He fur
ther says that we do not believe in such a thing as
a devil in human form, but we know that there is
evil, and that evil we call the devil. He hides his

55^ REPLY TO THE N. Y. CLERGY ON SUPERSTITION.

head under the same leaf with Dr. MacArthur by
calling the devil evil.

Now, is this gentleman willing to say that all the
allusions to the devil in the Old and New Testa
ments can be harmonized with the idea that the
devil is simply a personification of evil ? Can he
say this and say it honestly ?

But the Rev. Dr. Moldehnke, I think, seems to
be consistent ; seems to go along with the logic of
his creed. He says that the yellow fever, if it visit
ed our soldiers, came from God, and that we
should thank God for it. He does not say the
soldiers should thank God for it, or that those who
had it should thank God for it, but that we should
thank God for it, and there is this wonderful thing
about Christianity. It enables us to bear with great
fortitude, with a kind of sublime patience, the mis
fortunes of others.

He says that this yellow fever works out God's
purposes. Of course I am not as well acquainted
with the Deity as the Rev. Moldehnke appears to
be. I have not the faintest idea of what God's pur
poses are. He works, even according to his mes
sengers, in such a mysterious way, that with the
little reason I have I find it impossible to follow
him. Why God should have any purpose that

REPLY TO THE N. Y. CLERGY ON SUPERSTITION. 559

could be worked out with yellow fever, or cholera,
or why he should ever ask the assistance of tape
worms, or go in partnership with cancers, or take
in the plague as an assistant, I have never been
able to understand. I do not pretend to know. I
admit my ignorance, and after all, the Rev. Dr.
Moldehnke may be right. It may be that every
thing that happens is for the best. At the same
time, I do not believe it.

There is a little old story on this subject that
throws some light on the workings of the average
orthodox mind.

One morning the son of an old farmer came in
and said to his father, " One of the ewe lambs is
dead."

" Well," said the father ; " that is all for the best.
Twins never do very well, any how."

The next morning the son reported the death of
the other lamb, and the old man said, " Well, that
is all for the best ; the old ewe will have more
wool."

The next morning the son said, " The old ewe is
dead."

" Well," replied the old man ; " that may be for
the best, but I don't see it this morning."

The Rev. Mr. Hamlin has the goodness to say

560 REPLY TO THE N. Y. CLERGY ON SUPERSTITION.

that my influence is on the wane. This is an ad
mission that I have some, for which I am greatly
obliged to him. He further states that all my
arguments are easily refuted, but fails to refute them
on the ground that such refutation might be an
advertisement for me.

Now, if Mr. Hamlin would think a little, he
would see that there are some things in the lecture
on " Superstition " worth the while even of a
Methodist minister to answer.

Does Mr. Hamlin believe in the existence of the
devil ? If he does, will he have the goodness to
say who created the devil ? He may say that God
created him, as he is the creator of all. Then I
ask Mr. Hamlin this question : Why did God
create a successful rival ? When God created the
devil, did he not know at that time that he was
to make this world ? That he was to create Adam
and Eve and put them in the Garden of Eden, and
did he not know that this devil would tempt this
Adam and Eve ? That in consequence of that they
would fall ? That in consequence of that he would
have to drown all their descendants except eight ?
That in consequence of that he himself would have
to be born into this world as a Judean peasant?
That he would have to be crucified and suffer for

REPLY TO THE N. Y. CLERGY ON SUPERSTITION. 561

the sins of these people who had been misled by
this devil that he deliberately created, and that after
all he would be able only to save a few Methodists ?

Will the Rev. Mr. Hamlin have the goodness to
answer this ? He can answer it as mildly as he
pleases, so that in any event it will be no adver
tisement for him.

The Rev. Mr. F. J. Belcher pays me a great
compliment, for which I now return my thanks. He
has the goodness to say, " Ingersoll in many
respects is like Voltaire." I think no finer compli
ment has been paid me by any gentleman occupy
ing a pulpit, for many years, and again I thank the
Rev. Mr. Belcher.

The Rev. W. D. Buchanan, does not seem to be
quite fair. He says that every utterance of mine
impresses men with my insincerity, and that every
argument I bring forward is specious, and that I
spend my time in ringing the changes on arguments
that have been answered over and over again for
hundreds of years.

Now, Dr. Buchanan should remember that he
ought not to attack motives ; that you cannot
answer an argument by vilifying the man who makes
it. You must answer not the man, but the argu
ment.

562 REPLY TO THE N. Y. CLERGY ON SUPERSTITION.

Another thing this reverend gentleman should
remember, and that is that no argument is old until
it has been answered. An argument that has not
been answered, although it has been put forward
for many centuries, is still as fresh as a flower with
the dew on its breast. It never is old until it has
been answered.

It is well enough for this gentleman to say that
these arguments have been answered, and if they
have and he knows that they have, of course it will
be but a little trouble to him to repeat these answers.

Now, my dear Dr. Buchanan, I wish to ask you
some questions. Do you believe in a personal devil ?
Do you believe that the bodies of men and women
become tenements for little imps and goblins and
demons ? Do you believe that the devil used to
lead men and women astray ? Do you believe the
stories about devils that you find in the Old and New
Testaments ?

Now, do not tell me that these questions have been
answered long ago. Answer them now. And if
you say the devil does exist, that he is a person,
that he is an enemy of God, then let me ask you
another question : Why should this devil punish
souls in hell for rebelling against God ? Why should
the devil, who is an enemy of God, help punish God's

REPLY TO THE N. Y. CLERGY ON SUPERSTITION. 563

enemies ? This may have been answered many
times, but one more repetition will do but little
harm.

Another thing ; Do you believe in the eternity of
punishment ? Do you believe that God is the
keeper of an eternal prison, the doors of which open
only to receive sinners, and do you believe that
eternal punishment is the highest expression of
justice and mercy ?

If you had the power to change a stone into a
human being, and you knew that that human being
would be a sinner and finally go to hell and suffer
eternal torture, would you not leave it stone ? And
if, knowing this, you changed the stone into a man,
would you not be a fiend ? Now, answer this fairly.
I want nothing spiritual ; nothing with the Pres
byterian flavor ; just good, honest talk, and tell us
how that is.

I say to you that if there is a place of eternal tor
ment or misery for any of the children of men — I
say to you that your God is a wild beast, an insane
fiend, whom I abhor and despise with every drop of
my blood.

At the same time you may say whether you are
up, according to Dr. MacArthur, with the religious
thinking of the hour.

564 REPLY TO THE N. Y. CLERGY ON SUPERSTITION.

The Rev. J. W. Campbell I rather like. He appears
to be absolutely sincere. He is orthodox — true blue.
He believes in a devil ; in an acting, thinking devil,
and a clever devil. Of course he does not think this
devil is as stout as God, but he is quicker ; not quite
as wise, but a little more cunning.

According to Mr. Campbell, the devil is the bunco
steerer of the universe — king of the green goods men ;
but, after all, Mr. Campbell will not admit that if this
devil does not exist the Christian creeds all crumble,
but I think he will admit that if the devil does not
exist, then Christ was mistaken, or that the writers
of the New Testament did not truthfully give us his
utterances.

Now, if Christ was mistaken about the existence
of the devil, may be he was mistaken about the ex
istence of God. In other words, if Christ made a
mistake, then he was ignorant. Then we cannot say
he was divine, although ignorance has generally be
lieved in divinity. So I do not see exactly how Mr.
Campbell can say that if the devil does not exist
the Christian creeds do not crumble, and when I
say Christian creeds I mean orthodox creeds. Is
there any orthodox Christian creed without the devil
in it?

Now, if we throw away the devil we throw away

REPLY TO THE N. Y. CLERGY ON SUPERSTITION. 565

original sin, the fall of man, and we throw away the
atonement. Of this arch the devil is the keystone.
Remove him, the arch falls.

Now, how can you say that an orthodox Christian
creed remains intact without crumbling when original
sin, the fall of man, the atonement and the existence
of the devil are all thrown aside ?

Of course if you mean by Christianity, acting like
Christ, being good, forgiving, that is another matter,
but that is not Christianity. Orthodox Christians say
that a man must believe on Christ, must have faith,
and that to act as Christ did, is not enough ; that a
man who acts exactly as Christ did, dying without
faith, would go to hell. So when Mr. Campbell
speaks of a Christian, I suppose he means an orthodox
Christian.

Now, Dr. Campbell not only knows that the devil
exists, but he knows a good deal about him. He
knows that he can assume every conceivable disguise
or shape ; that he can go about like a roaring lion ;
that at another time he is a god of this world ; on
another occasion a dragon, and in the afternoon of the
same day may be Lucifer, an angel of light, and all
the time, I guess, a prince of lies. So he often as
sumes the disguise of the serpent.

So the Doctor thinks that when the devil invited

566 REPLY TO THE N. Y. CLERGY ON SUPERSTITION.

Christ into the wilderness to tempt him, that he
adopted some disguise that made him more than
usually attractive. Does the Doctor think that Christ
could not see through the disguise ? Was it possible
ror the devil with a mask to fool God, his creator?
Was it possible for the devil to tempt Christ by offer
ing him the kingdoms of the earth when they already
belonged to Christ, and when Christ knew that the
devil had no title, and when the devil knew that
Christ knew that he had no title, and when the devil
knew that Christ knew that he was the devil, and
when the devil knew that he was Christ ? Does the
reverend gentleman still think that it was the dis
guise of the devil that tempted Christ ?

I would like some of these questions answered, be
cause I have a very inquiring mind.

So Mr. Campbell tells us — and it is very good and
comforting of him — that there is a time coming when
the devil shall deceive the nations no more. He
also tells us that God is more powerful than the
devil, and that he is going to put an end to him.

Will Mr. Campbell have the goodness to tell me
why God made the devil ? If he is going to put an
end to him why did he start him ? Was it not a
waste of raw material to make him ? Was it not
unfair to let this devil, so powerful, so cunning, so

REPLY TO THE N. Y. CLERGY ON SUPERSTITION. 567 •

attractive, into the Garden of Eden, and put Adam
and Eve, who were then scarcely half dry, within his
power, and not only Adam and Eve within his power,
but their descendants, so that the slime of the serpent
has been on every babe, and so that, in consequence
of what happened in the Garden of Eden, flames
will surround countless millions in the presence of the
most merciful God ?

Now, it may be that the Rev. Dr. Campbell can
explain all these things. He may not care to do it
for my benefit, but let him think of his own congre
gation ; of the lambs he is protecting from the wolves
of doubt and thought.

The Rev. Henry Frank appears to be a man of
exceedingly good sense ; one who thinks for him
self, and who has the courage of his convictions. Of
course I am sorry that he does not agree with me,
but I have become used to that, and so I thank him
for the truths he utters.

He does not believe in the existence of a personal
devil, and I guess by following him up we would find
that he d'd not believe in the existence of a personal
God, or in the inspiration of the Scriptures. In
fact, he tells us that he has given up the infallibility
of the Bible. At the same time, he says it is the
most perfect compendium of religious and moral

568 REPLY TO THE N. Y. CLERGY ON SUPERSTITION.

thought. In that I think he is a little mistaken.
There is a vast deal of irreligion in the Bible, and
there is a good deal of immoral thought in the Bible ;
but I agree with him that it is neither inspired nor
infallible.

The Rev. E. C. J. Kraeling, pastor of the Zion
Lutheran Church, declares that those who do not
believe in a personal God do not believe in a per
sonal Satan, and vice versa. The one, he says,
necessitates the other. In this I do not think he is
quite correct. I think many people believe in a
personal God who do not believe in a personal
devil, but I know of none who do believe in a per
sonal devil who do not also believe in a personal
God. The orthodox generally believe in both of
them, and for many centuries Christians spoke with
great respect of the devil. They were afraid of
him.

But I agree with the Rev. Mr. Kraeling when he
says that to deny a personal Satan is to deny the
infallibility of God's word. I agree with this because
I suppose by " God's word " he means the Bible.

He further says, and I agree with him, that a
" Christian " needs no scientific argument on which
to base his belief in the personality of Satan. That
certainly is true, and if a Christian does need a

REPLY TO THE N. Y. CLERGY ON SUPERSTITION. 569

scientific argument it is equally true that he never
will have one.

You see this word " Science " means something
that somebody knows ; not something that somebody
guesses, or wishes, or hopes, or believes, but some
thing that somebody knows.

Of course there cannot be any scientific argument
proving the existence of the devil. At the same
time I admit, as the Rev. Mr. Kraeling says, and I
thank him for his candor, that the Bible does prove
the existence of the devil from Genesis to the .
Apocalypse, and I do agree with him that the
" revealed word " teaches the existence of a personal
devil, and that all truly orthodox Christians believe
that there is a personal devil, and the Rev. Mr.
Kraeling proves this by the fall of man, and he
proves that without this devil there could be no
redemption for the evil spirits ; so he brings forward
the temptation of Christ in the wilderness. At the
same time that Mr. Kraeling agrees with me as to
what the Bible says, he insists that I bring no
arguments, that I blaspheme, and then he drops
into humor and says that if any further arguments
are needed to prove the existence of the devil, that
I furnish them.

How a man believing the creed of the orthodox

57O REPLY TO THE N. Y. CLERGY ON SUPERSTITION.

Mr. Kraeling can have anything like a sense of
humor is beyond even my imagination.

Now, I want to ask Mr. Kraeling a few questions,
and I will ask him the same questions that I ask all
orthodox people in my lecture on " Superstition."

Now, Mr. Kraeling believes that this world was
created by a being of infinite wisdom, power and
goodness, and that the world he created has been
governed by him.

Now, let me ask the reverend gentleman a few
plain questions, with the request that he answer
them without mist or mystery. If you, Mr. Krael
ing, had the power to make a world, would you
make an exact copy of this ? Would you make a
man and woman, put them in a garden, knowing
that they would be deceived, knowing that they
would fall ? Knowing that all the consequences
believed in by orthodox Christians would follow
from that fall? Would you do it? And would
you make your world so as to provide for earth
quakes and cyclones ? Would you create the seeds
of disease and scatter them in the air and water ?
Would you so arrange matters as to produce can
cers ? Would you provide for plague and pesti
lence ? Would you so make your world that life
should feed on life, that the quivering flesh should

REPLY TO THE N. Y. CLERGY ON SUPERSTITION. 57 1

be torn by tooth and beak and claw ? Would
you?

Now, answer fairly. Do not quote Scripture;
just answer, and be honest.

Would you make different races of men ? Would
you make them of different colors, and would you
so make them that they would persecute and en
slave each other ? Would you so arrange matters
that millions and millions should toil through many
generations, paid only by the lash on the back ?
Would you have it so that millions and millions of
babes would be sold from the breasts of mothers ?
Be honest.

Would you provide for religious persecution ?
For the invention and use of instruments of torture ?
Would you see to it that the rack was not forgotten,
and that the fagot was not overlooked or unlighted ?
Would you make a world in which the wrong
would triumph ? Would you make a world in
which innocence would not be a shield? Would
you make a world where the best would be loaded
with chains ? Where the best would die in the
darkness of dungeons ? Where the best would make
scaffolds sacred with their blood ?

Would you make a world where hypocrisy and
cunning and fraud should represent God, and

572 REPLY TO THE N. Y. CLERGY ON SUPERSTITION.

where meanness would suck the blood of honest
credulity ?

Would you provide for the settlement of all
difficulties by war ? Would you so make your
world that the weak would bear the burdens, so
that woman would be a slave, so that children
would be trampled upon as though they were
poisonous reptiles ? Would you fill the woods with
wild beasts ? Would you make a few volcanoes to
overwhelm your children ? Would you provide
for earthquakes that would swallow them ? Would
you make them ignorant, savage, and fill their
minds with all the phantoms of horror ? Would
you ?

Now, it will only take you a few moments to
answer these questions, and if you say you would,
then I shall be satisfied that you believe in the
orthodox God, and that you are as bad as he. If
you say you would not, I will admit that there is a
little dawn of intelligence in your brain.

At the same time I want it understood with re
gard to all these ministers that I am a friend of
theirs. I am trying to civilize their congregations,
so that the congregations may allow the ministers
to develop, to grow, to become really and truly
intelligent. The process is slow, but it is sure.

UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY

A 001 341 931 2